On Recent Developments in the ICC
There are 3 particularly relevant documents everybody involved in or concerned about the ICC needs to know about.
 I get emails and visits from people on the Barnabas Ministry website and people want to know what I think about what's going on. This article is an attempt to answer that question. But just so everybody knows some things from the outset: While I was a member of the ICC and its predecessor movement (Crossroads) for more than 20 years, I left the Denver ICC church more than a year ago. I've "moved on" and try not to get too involved in ICC matters, but I have close friends who are still a part of the ICC and I still care about what goes on there.

So what do I think about the current events in the ICC? I'll try to be brief, and please bear with my frankness.

First, I'm glad I'm not a part of this mess. And a mess it is-- filled with logical contradictions, ignorance of history, revisionist history, and a lot of good people trying to do what is right-- it is a web of confusion. After spending a few hours working on this article, my head hurts and my heart hurts.

First and a half: The ICC has long been about power and control. It's authoritarian at its core. So there is no surprise that there is a huge fight over who will be in control. It's the Holy Grail for most ICC leaders.

Second, I think this mess was created by those of us who joined Kip McKean in creating the ICC back in the 80's. We should have listened to voices in the "traditional" churches of Christ that warned of problems. Israel should have listened to God and not made Saul king. But alas, young people sometimes have to learn the hard way. What is really sad is when they go through the hard way and don't learn.

Third, I commend the Boston leadership for calling Kip McKean divisive in his present intents and actions.

Third and a half: However, hasn't the ICC itself been divisive all along in calling itself "The Movement of God" and considering itself the only, one true church? For years in the ICC we refused to fellowship, work with and learn from other churches of Christ and Christian churches. We were better than them, and that's all there was to it. Other churches were routinely mocked and put down. Hey, I did this too, and it was always received well. Has that really changed in the ICC?  It sure doesn't seem to have changed with McKean in Portland. And the letter from the LA church talks about how input was sought from "around the kingdom" yet I think we all know what they mean by "kingdom." They don't mean God's kingdom on earth, all churches belonging to Him. They mean ICC churches. So it's great to call out Kip McKean for being divisive. But isn't this divisiveness part of the very fabric of the ICC itself? And frankly, the history of the Churches of Christ over the last 200 years contains many tales of divisiveness. So if you're going to call Kip McKean out for being divisive.... well, look in the mirror.

Third and three-quarters: At its best, the restoration ideal inspired people to look for new things to restore, but at its worst it led to a pompous competitiveness to be the "most restored" and then to an impulse to put down and judge everybody else instead of respecting their right to grow and learn too. In the light of "newly restored things" others would be one step behind and perhaps not even be Christians at all. In my opinion, this competitiveness has gone way past seeking God's ways in a humble, godly manner and is nothing more than worldly pride. How this smug, prideful, boastful thing gets confused with Christianity is beyond me. In my opinion, what is going on in the ICC right now is just the latest swell of the tide of this mentality.

Fourth, I think this mess was inevitable the moment Kip McKean was allowed to resign as the top poohbah (please forgive me for not remembering his exact title) of the ICC back in late 2002. Instead of confronting the false teachings and corruption of the ICC system, of which McKean was the author, McKean himself was made the scapegoat for the sins of all leadership in the ICC. Now McKean certainly was responsible for things, but he was doing the same things the other ICC leaders aspired to. So how could they condemn him but not themselves? Instead of dealing with the real issues of doctrines and unhealthy practices, the other WSL's disbanded the world sectors, divided up the assets and the ICC became an "autonomous brotherhood."  Many of them took severances from mission funds as the world sectors were liquidated. They cut and ran instead of dealing with the problems. Then they dumped the mess on individual congregations. The refusal of people in the ICC to deal with the core issues at the root of the problems reminds me of a sick person who doesn't want to go see the doctor or dentist for fear they "might find something." It's like they prefer sickness to health. I don't see how that makes any sense.

Fourth and a half: McKean demonizes Henry Kriete and his letter. So do many others in the ICC. Face it folks-- he said what everybody already knew. He just had enough "ICC merit badges" that it was hard to discredit him. The truth hurts. Deal with it, quit whining about it.

Fourth and three-quarters: Many of the people who can help the ICC see what's at the core of the problem are the ones who left. A big part of the problem is the incredible, institutionalized stubbornness that discourages honest examination. The ICC demonizes and marginalizes those who don't agree with the group. You say you want advice and help in what to do, but then you devalue the people that God has raised up to tell you what's going on. You're saying, "Tell me what my problem is, but don't tell me it's my Asherah Pole."

Fifth, McKean reminds me of a child who never wants to clean his room. When he makes a mess, he wants to buy a new house rather than clean his room. He leads a movement to chaos and destruction, then he wants to turn around and blame them when they were just following him! Then he wants to go somewhere new and start again. How many times do you have to see this before you're "on" to his ways?

Sixth, I find it interesting (in a sad sort of way) that people in the ICC want to reject McKean but retain McKeanism. For example, the LA church leadership statement uses McKeanian language in its common beliefs, including such magical phrases as "true disciple." And now McKean is touting the term "sold out disciples." (How far are we from hearing about "the one, true, sold-out, awesome, holy cow, tutti-fruiti, shazaam disciple?" Isn't this a little silly?) But this raises the $64,000 question, and I'll bold it for those who are just skimming the article: How can the ICC retain McKeanism and yet reject McKean? And how can it reject McKean but not itself? These are questions that demand answers from those remaining in the ICC. In my humble opinion, these things cannot be done. It's like trying to draw a round triangle. But hey, have at it. Good luck to you.

Sixth and a half: Even the healthiest people (spiritually) in the ICC have been terribly affected by their involvement in this system, far beyond their own ability to perceive it. Trying to get McKeanism out of your way of thinking is worse than trying to get gum out of your hair.

Seventh, I find it ridiculous for ICC people to continue to speak of the "havoc Satan has wreaked upon their movement," and to whine and complain about bitterness and the like in the ICC. I think Satan was involved-- but it was back when you leaders in the ICC criticized the people at every turn and called it leadership and discipling. The people were never good enough. Well, they've become like you. Satan got you to make criticalness, harshness and elitism virtues (don't forget that "wonderful" phrase, "Let's just lay it out," followed by a brutal, exaggerated rebuke over some relatively minor thing.). Even now, McKean criticizes the WSL's for their "attitudes" toward him. Well, they've been discipled by him so they're just like him. The GSL's were equally "critical" of the WSL's, because again, this mentality was discipled into them. And lead evangelists all around the ICC complained about how people felt about their abuse and incompetent leadership. Well, you discipled that into the people. You criticized them at every turn (did I say that already?), they were never good enough. You reap what you sow. So when these people tell you something you don't want to hear, you label it as "critical" or "bitterness." How convenient!

Seventh and a half: I'm so fed up with people speaking against public forums to discuss problems in the church. That's exactly what the apostles did in Acts 6 in the situation with the widows being neglected. It wasn't a Matthew 18 (one individual sinning against another) situation, and you don't see the apostles ripping into the widows for not denying themselves and being "true" (or is it "sold out?") disciples, or for "complaining" (that's the word the bible uses). You see them taking seriously an issue that affected the health of a significant portion of the congregation, and dealing with it in public so there is no double-talk, no lying or manipulation, no strong-arming, no politics, just letting the body take care of its needs openly and honestly. Shame on you who have ripped into public discussions as evil, and I suppose shame on you folks who used them to rip into people instead of discuss situations that related to the whole church. But when you have the sort of problems that the ICC churches had back then, public discussions are how you solve them. But, it's not my problem anymore.

Eighth, the ICC system has always been about being the biggest, "best-est" church. KNN was always trumpeting when a ICC church was the largest church in an area. None of those who have spoken in the current debate seems to have abandoned this standard of measurement; it's another McKean premise that is flawed from the get-go. McKean even rips into Kriete for preaching at a small church now. What, people in small churches don't deserve to exist now? They're second class citizens? Hey Kip, were your "30 would-be disciples" second class citizens too? You criticize people on every side of every issue; you don't even make sense anymore. Both sides in this latest squabble don't seem to have any room for the weak, the poor, the sinful, or the needy, despite token uses of the word "grace." Only super-duper-awesome "disciples" need apply. Folks, that's plainly unscriptural. My bible talks about the church being a place for sinners to be healed and connected to the love of God. That's the gospel. It seems that these ICC leader folks are so focused on having the best church they've forgotten the gospel and what the church is really for. And they've deluded themselves into thinking the poor, pitiful, blind, naked and wretched people the gospel is intended for must be somebody besides them. These leaders are like cowardly generals who will fight a battle to every last ounce of your blood. Thanks a lot. ICC members are now just pawns in these church battles, mere Galatian foreskins (Galatians 6:13). And this wanting to have the best church is nothing more than worldly competitiveness. I think Jesus died for us that we would be free (Galatians 5:1), not enslaved to church leaders and their grandiose schemes to gratify their egos. Shame on you church leaders who use your churches to make a name for yourselves. It's wicked and sociopathic, if you ask me.

Eighth and a half: You know what I look for in spiritual leadership? The number one trait? Humility.

Ninth, I find it astonishing and ridiculous that anyone would believe that making another run at McKeanism (whether the McKean "sold out" version or the LA "true" version or some other future version) will have any result other than what has transpired over the last few years. McKean was given a blank check (in more ways than one!) to run the ICC back in the 80's and we've seen what's happened. He moved thousands of people all over the globe, commanded the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars, took over and changed church leaderships at his whim. He ruled with an iron fist, and spread that spirit through the movement. Yes, he planted hundreds of churches, baptized thousands of people, but also deliberately, systematically engaged in spiritual abuse in the pursuit of his goals. He can whine and complain about why it failed, about why more than 75% of those who were baptized have left, about why people have turned on him. But my Bible says you judge a tree by its fruit. It was tried with all the effort of many, many people, and it failed. I saw it with my own eyes, and I'm not the only one. Who was it that said the definition of insanity is trying something twice and expecting a different result the second time?

Ninth and a half: It is possible to plant churches and baptize people without being abusive.

Tenth, I commend the LA people for actually writing down their ideas about a belief system. It's a necessary thing to do, far better than just saying, "we just use the Bible" when everybody knows you don't really mean that, and that you have some very well defined convictions about some particular things in the Bible. But have the authors really "surrendered all to the Lordship of Christ?" Have they "completely repented of sin?" Is the core of their faith and identity as Christians their ability to perform? This McKeanian language is utterly works oriented, and anybody who thinks they actually live up to this is deluded. They're still playing the Church of Christ, McKean game.

Tenth and a half: God knows we're weak, sinful people in need of his help. That's why Jesus died on the cross for us. It's the gospel. The person putting his confidence in his flesh, in his ability to perform, is under a curse (Jeremiah 17:5). We don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to boasting in our works before God. This sort of approach leads to people being out of touch with their own realities and living a double life. Paul talked about how rules have zero value in helping transform us (Colossians 2:23). Haven't you all had enough of this nonsense yet? When you live under law, even the slightest failure is condemnation. But when you live under grace, all good works (Ephesians 2:10) are a plus. I live under grace; you all can have law if you want it, but I don't know why in the world you want that.

Eleventh, all this talk about unity is really nice. But how about following Christ's command to love your brothers ... in other church fellowships? You could start by publicly acknowledging that they really are your brothers in the Lord. You could encourage (or at least not condemn) singles in your congregations to date those in these other congregations. You could work together with other congregations in planting churches, serving in the community and the like. Isn't that better than pretending we don't exist or aren't valid Christians anymore?

Eleventh and a half: It's wonderful to speak of protecting each other's reputations and not slandering others. But will you have this standard towards Christians in other churches besides your own? How about towards former members? Or are we all "fall aways?"

Well, that's enough for now. Now maybe I've been a bit colorful here, and perhaps sarcastic or pointed at times to get the point across. But I really do want to give people concerned about the ICC some things to think about. It's not my decision what you do, that's your decision. I have no idea how it will play out, what plans God may have in all of this. But I hope you'll consider the gospel of Christ, history and some of these observations as you move forward.

Copyright © 2005 John Engler. All rights reserved.

Send a letter to the editor concerning this article