I do not share that opinion; here I shall discuss each of Lifton's eight characteristics with a view towards experiences in the International Churches of Christ.

Milieu Control
Lifton discussed milieu control in the Chinese thought reform process. Western subjects he interviewed were incarcerated, beaten and prevented from sleeping in the prison environment. They were threatened with execution, and badgered with pro-communist ideology. That is milieu control.

Chinese subjects were intimidated into submitting to the thought reform process. Their only other options were imprisonment or having their lives and careers ruined by a dominant political party. That is milieu control.

Some have suggested that the ICC practices Liftonian milieu control by having frequent church activities, as though frequent attendance at events constitutes milieu control because of an inherent "isolation from others."

There are (at least) four major differences between the Chinese thought reform experience and what some would call milieu control in the ICC.

1. Choice. True subjects of milieu control were in prison, typically for three years (in the case of Westerners) or forced to attend a revolutionary university (in the case of native Chinese). Those who attend ICC services exercise a choice to do so every time they attend.
2. Time. Chinese thought reform consisted of exposure to the thought reform milieu twenty-four hours a day for three years. Contrast this with Christian conversion in the ICC. The average "First Principles" study experience consists of about 5 studies spread out over a few weeks. Let's just say it takes four weeks, and the catechumen attends Sunday, midweek and small group studies for those weeks (2 hours each, for the sake of argument) as well as participating in personal studies (also 2 hours each). Computing the total number of hours, it comes to about 34 hours, compared to 26,000 hours in Chinese thought reform! Plainly, there is no comparison in the amount of time involved.
3. Isolation. Those who are incarcerated or forced onto a revolutionary university campus are in a completely isolated and controlled environment. People who study through the "First Principals" series and attend ICC events maintain the rest of their schedule-- freely interacting with family, school, work, neighborhood and other social contacts as they choose, as well as enjoying reading, entertainment and recreation at their pleasure.
4. Treatment. Thought reformers badger their subjects persistently with all sorts of physical and emotional abuse. For example, Lifton recounts stories of how some were prevented from sleeping by being poked throughout the night. Some were made to stand for 36 hours straight. Some were handcuffed behind their backs for weeks. They were beaten and threatened with execution. Promises of leniency were offered if the subject would "only" comply. Former subjects of the program also reported enormous amounts of despair and having the possibility of execution hanging over their heads as well. Some have accused the ICC of practicing harsh leadership bordering upon abuse (such as publicly humiliating people). These have sometimes occurred, and I condemn harsh and abusive leadership. But even the harshest and most humiliating things I have seen or even heard of pale in comparison to the kind of abuse perpetrated in the thought reform environment.

Christianity does have an aspect of "phobic indoctrination." But a distinction must be maintained between not heeding the word of God (which does carry grave consequences) and not heeding the words of men (which does not carry such grave consequences).

Human "phobic indoctrination" can only work if the claims are true-- or if the hearer believes they are true. The appropriate response is to focus on the authoritative word of the Bible and not the words of men.

I suppose "phobic indoctrination" could influence people to disregard other sources of information. But it seems just as likely to cause a curiosity about items spoken against as it is to make one ignore them. Supposing it is effective at discouraging exposure to certain types of information, it is not comparable to the extreme milieu control mechanisms utilized in Chinese thought reform because it cannot deny or remove access to those sources of information as in a truly controlled milieu.

For these reasons, phobic indoctrination is of limited power in effecting milieu control.

Thus, there can be no comparison between the milieu control of the thought reform environment (forced imprisonment, revolutionary university) and suggestions that milieu control is created by frequent church activities or "phobic indoctrination."

Personal Reflection
In my personal experience, life itself can seem so busy that sometimes feel like I don't even have time to think. But church related items are only a small fraction of the other things going on in life. My wife, my young children, my job and my household responsibilities all contribute to the demands for time and energy. And let's not forget maintaining this website and having some fun!

I don't think a busy schedule itself directly causes isolation. But there have been times when I wanted to be isolated from one set of things or people, and other things provided a perfect match for my own desires.

People usually find a way to accomplish what they want. Some people may desire isolation and others may not-- and this is the determining factor in whether or not isolation occurs. Lifton recognized some people are more "totalistic" in their thinking and are more likely to be attracted to and prosperous in a totalist environment.

There is a huge difference between free "self chosen" isolation and the milieu control of thought reform-- and where there is choice, there is no milieu control and therefore no thought reform.

Mystical Manipulation
The basic notion behind Lifton's mystical manipulation is deliberate effort on the part of those controlling the milieu to provoke specific patterns of behavior and emotions, which the subjects think arose spontaneously.

Some have suggested that ICC events build upon singing, prayer and emotional speeches in services to manipulate participants into "approved" types of behavior. However, this phenomenon was true in apostolic times (e.g. Acts 2:42, 14:22, 15:31) and is true even in modern times in any church where these same things are practiced-- these things are not unique to the ICC.

In fact, from a biblical point of view, singing is intended to have the effect of helping Christians be more spiritual (Ephesians 5:18-19). Church services are precisely designed by God to have the effect of encouraging Christians to do what is right (Hebrews 10:23-25). The preaching of the Word of God is intended to bring faith (Romans 10:17). Sharing good news brings encouragement (Acts 15:3). Observe these passages and consider the truth of these things:

  And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord (Ephesians 5:18-19).

  Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near (Hebrews 10:23-25).

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Romans 10:17).

  Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren (Acts 15:3).

Demand for Purity
Lifton's "demand for purity" involved eliminating all ideas, feelings and actions opposed to the totalist ideology. Christianity holds in tension the ideas of striving for righteousness and perfection (Matthew 5:48, 2 Corinthians 13:11) while recognizing the the goal cannot be achieved (1 John 1:8). Romans 7:14-25 illustrates this ongoing process in the life of a Christian.

In the ICC, some have said that the expectations can be so high than no one can meet them. In these cases, there is a constant looking to "take it higher" that can turn God's approval into an objective that is always just out of reach. According to this perspective, these expectations are deliberately set high to continually keep the membership "guilty" and thus needing the control offered by the leadership.

Also, the call to "be a disciple" is sometimes considered a cure-all for all problems, as if anyone having a problem obviously "isn't being a disciple." It is also common to compare people to Jesus and show how people fall short of that goal. Either way, the standard of perfection is held up as an achievable goal, guaranteeing failure and guilt on the part of the people.

Personal Reflection
In my personal experience, the tendency to speak of "taking it higher" is a common leadership trait. Times when I have done this I think I was trying to be positive or inspirational or faithful. Maybe other leaders feel compelled to put challenges before the people they lead lest they "give up" or "backslide." Maybe they do this simply because they have seen others do it and assume this is "true spiritual leadership." Maybe they think the ability to point out areas where people fail is some special gift. Or perhaps many leaders are of a dominant/builder personality type that thrives upon challenges. I'm sure there are other explanations for this type of leadership behavior that I haven't listed. I do think that leaders who practice this sort of thing don't realize how discouraging it can be for other people.

Mature Christians may be able to recognize what is going on in these cases and provide a moderating perspective or influence that balances the striving to do right with the acceptance of grace and appreciation for what good is already being done, and God's role in accomplishing good things. I strongly encourage anyone experiencing a discouraging situation like this to speak honestly and lovingly about it to their leader. As I said before, a leader may have no idea that something is causing discouragement and you speaking to him is important for avoiding problems and maintaining unity. Such discussions are always beneficial, in my experience.

Cult of Confession
Lifton's cult of confession consists of more than just the simple confession of sin mentioned in the Bible. In the thought reform environment, confession is demanded and excused arbitrarily as a means of domination and control.

Some have said that in the ICC confession is abused in that a human decides when confession is "good enough," that forgiveness is never really available, and that confession is something that is demanded and expected rather than "willingly" offered.

Personal Reflection
In the past, I have sometimes seen confession abused with my confessions being used to personally humiliate me. There have also been times when, no matter what I confessed, it wasn't "good enough."  But these incidents were more than ten years ago. Nowadays I see a better practice of confession, where it isn't "expected" or "demanded" but occurs spontaneously because people see the benefit of it-- openness, encouragement, and bringing healing through sharing weaknesses and sins with others, etc. These are the true benefits of confession. I don't see a "cult of confession" in the ICC these days.

Sacred Science
Lifton's sacred science describes the doctrine of the milieu as above criticism (if not "scientific"). Either way, it is the "rock," the foundation of all else and above questioning.

Some have said the the ICC's "First Principles" or stand on "restored biblical doctrines" amount to a Liftonian sacred science. Others have seen the excessive control of leadership as evidence of a "priesthood" of the sacred science, providing an arbitrary but approved source of direction.

Like most churches, ICC churches have core beliefs. Some are held quite strongly, again like most other churches. Most churches consider their beliefs to be the product of sound exegesis of the Bible and/or binding tradition. In a sense, any church with a strongly-held belief system might be guilty of having Lifton's "sacred science."

One thing that differentiates the ICC from many (if not most) churches, is its track record concerning changes in practice and beliefs. One major critic of the ICC has built his entire thesis of criticism around the changing doctrines of the ICC in its earliest days. Proponents of the ICC like myself simply suggest that they were willing to look beyond their traditions and existing understandings of certain items and pursue a fresh Biblical perspective. I consider this to be a great strength of the ICC fellowship. Whether the findings stand up to the scrutiny of detailed or scholarly examination is not the issue (though I think they do, but that's another discussion); my point is that such changes from time to time stand as strong evidence against the "sacred science" allegation.

The key to Lifton's criteria as applied to churches is not whether there are beliefs, but how open those beliefs are to investigation and change. Lifton would generally condemn all conservative Christian groups that hold to the inspiration and authority of the Bible, preferring to have everything open to question. Yet on the continuum between rigidity and flexibility in biblical interpretation, the ICC is more flexible than most churches on non-critical issues, being an environment where examination and study of the Scriptures and going against tradition when appropriate is encouraged.

Loaded Language
Lifton's concept of the "loaded language" of thought reform goes beyond the mere jargon and vocabulary present in any specialized situation. To Lifton, the key idea is that certain terms are redefined with atypical meanings, and these terms subsequently restrict the thought of organization members in accordance with the organization's values.

The ICC certainly has its share of jargon-- from various leadership titles that sometimes sound more like a corporate management structure than something out of the Bible to everyday vocabulary riddled with words like "awesome" and "disciples."  But, the question isn't does the ICC have lingo?; merely having lingo doesn't qualify for "loading the language." The real question is-- do these terms mean more than what they plainly say and restrict the thought of those who use them?

Actually, I find this change of meanings of words common in the ICC, as well as in the rest of the world. Here are some examples.

Advertisers speaks of "saving money" when you purchase something "on sale." Isn't it odd that you apparently have to spend money to save money? Or, banks that offer "free checking for a certain monthly fee." Or, congressmen speak of "spending cuts" when reductions in the percentage of increase are in view. What a bunch of misleading double-talk-- and everyday speech is loaded with these!

Yes, the ICC has its share of this type of thing, like the rest of the religious world. For example, the term "disciple" originally meant a learner, especially one of those who followed Jesus during his earthly ministry. In the ICC, it has become the synonym of choice for a Christian or believer in Jesus. One might speak of "just being a disciple" when doing some act of self-denial (cf. Lk 14:27, 9:23-- though notice the word "disciple" is not used!) or learning (cf. Mt 28:18-19) or submission. The term has become synonymous with the ideal and pinnacle of spiritual devotion, though sometimes departing from the Scriptural basis from which it derives its existence.

When a Pentecostal person speaks of having the Holy Spirit, what he means is speaking in tongues. When a Baptist speaks of "accepting Jesus" he means becoming a Christian. And when a Catholic speaks of confession, he means something entirely different than what a Protestant would mean by the term. Loaded language? Yes.

Even critics of the ICC are guilty of this loading of the language. They might speak of  "information" about the ICC, which is an innocuous-sounding term for one-sided, derogatory information designed to undermine one's involvement with the ICC. The term "ex-member" contains an implicit notion that they have been where any member has been, and have "seen the light" and are now ex-members. There is a suggestion that the ex-member is somehow "enlightened" while the current member is somehow flawed. Whether an "ex-member" is a person, a hero, a victim, a quitter or an apostate depends upon who you talk to!

So is there a loading of the language in the ICC? To some degree, but not nearly to the degree that it is problematic in a Liftonian sense. And I think a lot of this is cultural, because I can't think of too many other situations in the world these days where the language isn't loaded somehow, some way. By Lifton's standards, the whole world is guilty of this part of the thought reform milieu. Regrettably, the doublespeak of Orwell's 1984 has become commonplace in our day.

Doctrine over Person
Lifton defined this notion of "doctrine over person" as  a corollary to the "sacred science" aspect. Since the doctrine is perfect, it takes precedence over experience and people. If the system doesn't work for someone, it can't be the (perfect or "sacred") system's fault so it must be the person's fault. People exist for the system.

Some have said that the "inflexibilities" of the ICC system are a classic expression of this criteria. For example-- everyone must have a discipler in the discipling chain-- whether it is best for that person or not. There are numerous areas where uniformity is encouraged for the sake of unity first, with only a secondary regard for the welfare of the individual member.

From my perspective, the ICC has policies more or less "on paper" but these are not the final word. Though there is a strong desire for people to conform to the stated ideals, there are often plans and policies in place to accommodate exceptions and nonconformance. After all, the church is made up of sinners and the world is full of exceptions, and any plan that doesn't take this into account will not succeed at its mission.

Dispensing of Existence
The last of Lifton's criteria for a thought reform environment, the dispensing of existence, is the refusal to recognize those who do not conform to the milieu. To the Chinese communists, the future belonged to those who "reformed." Those who failed to reform had no future (figuratively speaking, in most cases).

Critics of the ICC have suggested that the use of the term "unspiritual" in the ICC is a means of reducing the impact of  certain individuals. Similarly, the term "fall-away" as applied to former members is said by some to have the same effect, considering them lost because of their lack of involvement in the group.

Since the mission of the church is to teach all men to know and follow the commands of Jesus (Mt 28:18-20), the church cannot simultaneously pursue its mission and dispense with the existence of those to whom it ministers-- that just doesn't make any sense at all! Of course the church promotes exemplary behavior and disdains behavior that falls short of its ideals. This may be done either in love and humility, or with self-righteousness. To me, this is the real issue of concern-- not whether church promotes behavior it considers exemplary.

"Marking"
Some critics of the ICC have clamed that vocal critics are publicly "marked" by the leadership in an attempt to silence their complaints. Critics consider to be a "dispensing of existence." Let us consider one such passage where the church is commanded to make such observations:

  Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good, and innocent in what is evil (Romans 16:17-19).

Thus, "marking" is not an attempt to preempt or silence a critic, but it is the rendering a judgment concerning that critic's words that are commonly known and of a likely detrimental impact upon the group because that person was formerly in a position of trust.

Marking is not for those who are merely contrary, but for those who by their expression of contrary remarks seek to destroy the church. It is for this reason that criticisms of the church always ought to be done in such a way as to build up the church, not to destroy it.

The heart of Lifton's criteria of "dispensing of existence" concept is open-mindedness to people holding contrary ideas. While Christians in the ICC are not likely to be receptive to ideas clearly contrary to Scripture, they ought to be (and generally are) receptive to alternate perspectives and opinions on matters of faith and practice, especially when these are done with the building-up of the church in view. However, when these alternate opinions are offered with a destructive slant, they are usually rejected-- not because they are different, but because they are destructive.

Final Observations on Lifton's Criteria and the ICC
Having discussed the common allegations concerning faith and practice within the ICC concerning Lifton's criteria, I find that most instances where the ICC may be found "guilty" of meeting Lifton's criteria are instances where Lifton is also at odds with biblical Christianity. In the other cases, the determining factor of whether the ICC practices "thought reform" depend upon the manner and spirit in which various practices are carried out, not by the practices themselves. And in my opinion, the manner and spirit in which these practices are carried out is in love, humility and respect.

Since Lifton himself considers milieu control the indispensable criteria for thought reform, its absence in the ICC pretty much rules out any possibility of Liftonian thought reform.

In all of these matters, I speak of my own personal experiences and knowledge of the ICC. Is it possible that someone, somewhere in the ICC might practice Christianity with control and manipulation more characteristic of Lifton's environment than biblical Christianity? I suppose so. In these cases, it is my hope that this discussion helps members of the ICC understand the objections of others and the teaching of the Scriptures on these matters.

It is my hope that this entire discussion sheds increased light and insight into biblical Christianity itself. For it is the Scriptures and not Lifton's criteria that ought to be given priority; one is the word of God and the other is the word of man.

Copyright © 2000 John Engler. All rights reserved.