The ultimate product to sell would be one
desperately needed by everyone, but sold only by you. Selling
such a product would be as simple as explaining why people need it, convincing
them that you sold it exclusively, and watching the sales roll in. By
claiming to be the “only true church,” the International Churches of
Christ (ICC) gives itself such an advantage in the spiritual
“marketplace.”
In this section, we will examine the biblical merit
of the ICC's exclusivity claim, and find that this claim is false and
misleading.
The ICC and its
top leaders have taught that the Bible points to “one true church:”
“Now, my Bible
teaches me there is but one church. And a lot of people say, ‘Well
bro’, you know, maybe somewhere in the world, there's another movement of
God going on.’ Let me tell you something: we're in 171 nations and we
haven't found anybody yet.”
Kip McKean (ICC founder), Known but to
God, American Commonwealth Region Conference, Washington, D.C., audiotape,
July 7, 2000.
Founder Kip McKean and
ICC leadership make the semantic error that “church” in the Bible
refers to one – and only one – organization. In fact, the Greek word
for “church,” ekklesia, doesn't have an organizational
emphasis at all, but is used throughout the New Testament to refer to the
church universal (Romans 16:4, I Corinthians 16:19, II Corinthians 8:18-24,
Galatians 1:22, etc.). By contrast, the ICC treats the English word
“church” as if it refers to a specific tangible organization. While
ekklesia in the Bible refers
inclusively to a universal brotherhood, the ICC’s interpretation of
the church/ekklesia is exclusive. Although ICC
leadership teaches that the ICC is the “one true church," the phrases "one
true church," "true church," and even "one church" are fully absent from the
Bible.
According to McKean, the
“true church” even ceased to exist over the centuries until McKean
“restored” it in 1979:
“See, before
1979, there were small groups within churches that were dedicated, fired up,
and in their hearts ‘disciples.’ But there was no
‘church.’ There was no single congregation where every single
member was a disciple…”
Kip McKean, Known
but to God, July 7, 2000.
McKean’s words are
especially troubling knowing that Jesus said, “the gates of Hades will
not overcome [my church]” (Matthew 16:18). In saying there was
“no church” prior to 1979, McKean would have us believe that
Jesus’ prediction about the church failed. In fact, ICC leadership’s
view of “the church” conflicts with the Bible.
The ICC and its
top leaders have taught that people who leave the movement leave God:
And then they
[people who leave the church] go, and they say, “I’m just
leaving the International Church of Christ. I’m not leaving God.”
Let me tell you something: when you leave God’s church you leave
God.
Kip McKean,
“The Kingdom of God,” Jubilee 2000: Even Greater Things,
Kingdom News Network (KNN), January 2001, Vol. 2, Los Angeles, (videotaped
November 11, 2000).
It’s unsound to say
that people will lose their relationship with God by leaving a specific group
of believers. Romans 8 teaches that the Holy Spirit and Christ intercede
directly on behalf of believers (Romans 8:26-27,34), and that it is God who
judges:
“…those
he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he
justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this?
If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own
Son, but gave him up for us all – how will he not also, along with him,
graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom
God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns?
…” (Romans 8:29-34, emphasis added)
Paul’s words in
Romans 8 imply that believers can't be separated from the love of God:
"For I am convinced
that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor
the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all
creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ
Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39)
If "nothing in all
creation" can separate a person from God's love, then how could leaving the
International Churches of Christ organization? Perhaps McKean and ICC
leadership have forgotten that final judgment in the Bible is
individual, not collective (Revelation 20: 11-15). According to
the Bible they claim to follow, people will be judged individually and group
affiliations will ultimately mean nothing on judgment day.
Although
Jesus said not to judge others in Matthew 7:1 (and Luke 6:37), ICC leadership
has taught that judging others is not necessarily wrong:
Is it wrong to
judge others? . . . Jesus condemned hypocritical judging [in Matthew
7:1-5]. Not all judging is wrong.
Douglas Jacoby (Kingdom Teacher), Shining Like
Stars: The Evangelism Handbook for the New Millennium, mil. ed., Woburn,
MA: DPI, 2000, p. 233.
Ignored by Jacoby and
other ICC leaders, condemnational judging seems to be the type most often
prohibited in the New Testament. In fact, Matthew 7:1-5 forbids it according to
at least one commentary:
The
word ‘judge’ in this place is translated from a Greek word,
krino, also found in such
passages as John 12:48, Acts 17:31, and 2 Timothy 4:1, indicating that the type
of judging forbidden in this place is that of presuming to determine salvation,
or the lack of it, in others.(1)
ICC leadership not only
judges the salvation of others (e.g. outsiders, former members), it encourages
members to do the same, violating Biblical commands about not judging like
these:
Who are you to
judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands and falls...
Romans 14:4
You, then, why do
you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will
all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: 'As surely as I live,'
says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to
God.' So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let
us stop passing judgment on one another... Romans 14:10-13
…It is the
Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait
till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will
expose the motives of men's hearts... I Corinthians 4:4-5
There is only one
Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you – who
are you to judge your neighbor? James 4:12
Ironically for the ICC,
the Bible contains more commands about not judging than it does about
baptism or evangelism.(2)
ICC leadership
misinterprets II Peter 2:20-22 to say that when someone leaves the ICC, it is
like “a dog returning to its vomit”, as ICC World Sector Leader Al
Baird said in a media interview:
“The Bible
says that if someone turns away from God and his church, that, quote, ‘is
like a dog returning to its vomit’, and it would be better for them never
to even have known the truth, than to have known it, and departed from
it.”
Al Baird (World Sector Leader), “A Matter
of Control”, Fifth Estate, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,
December 1993.
Quoting this verse to
departing members is standard practice, as instructed by the ICC’s
Leader’s Resource Handbook.(3) To see how the ICC has twisted this
passage, first notice that identifying who “they” are is crucial to
understanding the verses:
“If they
have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse
off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for
them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it
and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to
them. Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its
vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the
mud.’” II Peter 2:20-22 (emphasis added)
So, who are "they?" If
we read the whole chapter of II Peter 2, we find that “they,” in
context, are “false teachers” (v. 1) with “greed” (v.3) who
“slander celestial beings” (v. 10) and “blaspheme” (v. 12)
in their false teachings (v. 18, 19). II Peter was not written about members
who leave the church – it’s specifically about false teachers!
ICC leadership incorrectly assumes that "they” refers to people who leave
the church.
Without this scripture
which it has so abused, the ICC has no Biblical right to tell its former
members that their lives will be miserable if they leave, or that they’re
like “dogs returning to their own vomit.”
When ICC
leaders speak about people outside the organization, extreme partiality is
often displayed. Polarizing views are propagated by leadership and encouraged
among members: people inside the organization are in the “kingdom”;
everyone else is in “the world”. Almost everything inside the church
is viewed as good; everything outside in “the world” is viewed as
bad. Leaders voice stark generalizations about non-members’ ability to
express real caring or depth:
“Men in the
world do not have great relationships with other men. They don’t even know
their last name. They can play softball with ‘em for ten seasons in a row
and not know they even have any kids. They only – worldly men only talk
about worldly things, they don’t talk about anything important. As
disciples, we do talk about important things.”
Jim Brown, Dating in
the Kingdom, 1997, tape 2.
The movement’s
founder seems even to question whether true friendships can exist
outside the ICC:
“Think about
it, did you really have any friends before you came in the kingdom[ICC] – I mean, real friends?”
Above all, religious
leaders and alternatives outside the ICC are disparaged. In the warped view of
top ICC leaders, there is no acknowledged hope of finding true spirituality
outside the ICC:
“In our
society, most churches and church leaders have been anything but directive in
the lives of their members. Most preachers and other leaders have mastered the
fine art of almost saying something! To state that they are not much like Jesus
and the leaders in the early church is to be guilty of understatement to the
nth degree. But this kind of wishy-washy, wimpy leadership is the
stuff of which modern religion is made.”
Gordon Ferguson,
Discipling…, 1997, p. 154.
“Agape [Greek: sacrificial love] will
not be found in pseudo-Christian denominations – even those who say they
believe in the whole Bible – because their lack of discipleship,
directness and honesty at the personal level shows that they don’t
understand the cross at a deep heart-level.”
Douglas Jacoby,
Life to the Full: The Practical and Powerful Writings of James, Peter, John
& Jude, DPI, Woburn, MA, 1995, p. 164.
This elitism can get
offensive when applied to the entire non-ICC Christian world. Whether
intentionally judgmental or just insensitive, these kinds of statements from
leadership reinforce an elitist mind-set for members.
Another catalyst for ICC
exclusivity is the double standards common in the church.
First, the ICC holds
double standards for ICC members vs. non-members:
mistakes: Mistakes made
by ICC members are excusable because “people are imperfect” and "people make mistakes," but mistakes made by
people outside the ICC are viewed as proof that they are “lost.”
doctrine: The ICC is
allowed to correct its doctrine over time, justified by the idea of
“progressive revelation”, but the perceived false teachings of other
religious groups are thought to automatically damn them.
sincerity:
Sincere religious individuals outside the organization are assumed to
be “sincere but sincerely wrong”; meanwhile, the sincerity of ICC
members/leaders is seen as automatic justification for their actions.
payment:
ICC critics who accept money for their time (as exit counselors or authors)
have no credibility. Meanwhile, ICC leaders, many of them paid
healthy salaries while they express a
positive view of the church, suffer no loss in credibility.
deception: ICC
leadership has assailed exit counseling for
the alleged use of deception when families arrange exit counseling meetings.
Yet leadership allows and even trains ICC members to invite people to
activities without revealing their intent
to recruit invitees into the ICC – as if deception was wrong when used
against the ICC, but not when it is used for the ICC.
There is also an
exclusivity between leaders and members:
secrets:
Members should have no
secrets from leaders, but leaders can have secrets from members.
scrutiny:
Members’ faults and weaknesses may be discussed openly at
leaders-only meetings. Leaders judge
members fiercely and in avalanche proportions, yet members are expected to
support leaders in everything. When members speak critically about leaders it
is considered “gossip.”
criticism:A member directly criticizing a leader is often termed “divisive”
or unspiritual, while a leader’s criticism of a member is considered to be
a “rebuke” – a spiritual act.
Ironically, ICC
partiality and double standards clash with Christianity’s most
widely-known ethic: the
Golden Rule. Known to most people as “do to others as
you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31), the Golden Rule is expressed
in other biblical ideas like “do not judge, or you too will be
judged” (Matthew 7:1-5), or “consider others better than
yourselves” (Philippians 2:3).
How can the ICC
organization truly honor the Golden Rule if members consider themselves elite
and privileged versus people in “the world”? Or if leadership grants
itself liberties, perks and privileges that it withholds from members? It
can’t – the Golden Rule is being infringed.
ICC leaders are
fond of quoting Matthew 7, where Jesus says, “small is the gate and
narrow the door that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew
7:14). But the “narrow door” doesn’t mean that Jesus was the
exclusivist the ICC makes him out to be.
First of all, the
biblical Jesus constantly associated with people whom others had dismissed.
Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4: 7-42) – surprising
even his followers (vs. 27), since Jews customarily avoided Samaritans (vs. 9).
Jesus was seen with tax collectors and "sinners," people that the Pharisees
felt Jesus should not be around (Matthew 9:10-13). In fact, Jesus opposed the
exclusiveness of the Pharisees at every opportunity.
Second, Jesus’
teachings surprised his followers by their very inclusiveness. In Luke
9: 49-50 we learn that Jesus’ followers had told a man not to cast out
demons in his name, “because he is not one of us.” Yet Jesus
corrected them, saying “whoever is not against us is for us.”
Thirdly, even though the
first believers thought that Christ had died for only Jews (Acts 10: 45, 11:
1-2, 15: 1), he did it for Gentiles as well as Jews (Acts 10: 34-35, 11: 18,
15: 8-11; Galatians 3: 14). Even when Jesus' disciples wanted to save only the
Jews, he said “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I
must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one
flock and one shepherd.” (John 10:16)
Jesus was hardly the
exclusivist the ICC makes Him out to be. Yes, he said the “door” was
narrow, but perhaps not as narrow as the ICC makes it – as if the
“gate” is so small that no other group can walk though it.
The ICC’s
current leaders were in fellowship with the mainline Churches of Christ until
the late 1980s, and their words from this period now look contradictory.
In this remarkable
quote, Kip McKean spoke of meeting 80 “disciples” at a Crossroads
campus devotional one night in the early 1970s, years before the Boston Church
of Christ began:
“And I think about
the very first time that I came to a gathering in the Lord’s
church… I still remember walking into this devotional of about 80
college kids on a Friday night [in 1972] and feeling the intensity the
love in that group. Here I was, a sinner, an outsider, an immoral man, and yet
I was welcomed with open arms and I still remember someone coming over and
giving me a hug. I said, man, these are the disciples of Jesus Christ.”
Today’s
ICC members might be shocked to hear McKean say he could walk into a church in
1972 and find 80 "true" Christians. They might also be surprised by McKean's
acknowledgement, during a 1982 Gainesville guest appearance, that his Boston
church was actually modeled after the Crossroads Church of Christ:
“I certainly
very much appreciate the very kind introduction that Chuck [Lucas] gave
me there… Certainly we’re so appreciative of the great work
that’s done in this place, and the model that it is for our church
there in Boston, and around the world.”
Kip McKean, The
Responsibility of Discipleship, Crossroads Tapes, Gainesville, FL, 1982.
As years passed and the
Boston Movement faced growing friction with the mainline churches, top level
leaders Steve Johnson and Al Baird were invited to sit on a panel discussion at
a Church of Christ forum at Freed-Hardeman University in Tennessee. During the
panel discussion, Steve Johnson was asked how he viewed the mainline church,
and responded that the two movements were unified:
Q:
“…what is your attitude toward the traditional churches?”
A: “The
attitude is, the attitude is that we’re one in God’s eyes but
there are some strong disagreements and some strong differences in the way that
we carry out our ministries…”
Steve Johnson (World Sector Leader), Discipling,
Church Growth and Unity, Freed-Hardeman forum, October 10, 1987.
Al Baird also was asked
for his view of the mainline church, answering as follows:
“I do not
believe that I’m not in fellowship with the quote, ‘mainline’
church. I want to be in fellowship with the mainline church.”
Al Baird,
Discipling, Church Growth and Unity, October 10, 1987.
Indeed, the Boston
Movement fellowshipped with mainline Churches Christ through the mid-to-late
80s, allowing members to transfer from one group to the other, in most cases
without being re-converted or rebaptized. Today, ICC leadership says little
about this past connection, and denigrates the mainline Church of Christ as
having little or no value:
“Denominational churches are
dying. The mainline Church of Christ is dead.”
Kip McKean, "The Movement of God," Revolution Through Restoration,
Part II, The Twentieth Century Church, icoc.org, 1994.
This leaves only a few
ways to explain the movement’s changed position on the mainline Churches
of Christ:
1. Movement
leaders were in error for fellowshipping with mainliners from 1979
through 1987.
2. Movement
leaders are now in error for considering mainline churches "lost".
3. The mainline
church, a hundred-year-old movement with over a million members, suddenly "left
God" sometime around 1987.
Possibility #3 is least
plausible, because the mainline churches have not significantly changed their
practice or doctrine since 1987. It is the ICC movement that has changed (see
Changing Tunes). The ICC has changed its
teaching on autonomy,
conversion, who makes up
the Lord's church, and
who's saved. Yet despite ICC
leadership's efforts to distance itself from mainline Churches of Christ, many
similarities remain:
(note:
this is a rough list of similarities -- there are certainly
more)
doctrine of adult baptism
through immersion for the forgiveness of sins
sola scripture emphasis (the Bible only)
tendancy toward exclusivity
(only ones saved)
emphasis on doctrinal
“restoration”
preference toward a
capella music (vocal, not instrumental)
procedure for Lord’s
supper (communion)
interpretation of
“the kingdom”
interpretation of
“the church”
emphasis on attending all
meetings of “the body”
emphasis on visiting
affiliated churches when away on vacation
emphasis on baptism
statistics
emphasis on weekly
contribution statistics
the term “special
contribution”
anti-denominational
emphasis
Much of what the ICC
teaches today is simply old Church of Christ doctrine which has been
solidified, codified and magnified into a new extreme form. As one person said
it, “The ICC seems to be the mainline [Church of Christ] on
steroids!”(4)
In February 1987, the
mainline Churches of Christ newspaper, The Christian Chronicle,
published a sharply critical editorial about the Boston Movement. Kip McKean
predicted then that the article would be an “infamous turning point in
our movement”(5) and he read it aloud at the
1987 Boston Women’s Retreat.
On the audiotape sold by
DPI, the ICC's publishing service, McKean seems to be reading this article in
its entirety to the Women’s Retreat. However, comparison with the original
Christian Chronicle article shows that large sections have been omitted
– it seems McKean left out some of the article's strongest criticisms,
without giving any audible cues to his audience that he was skipping over
material.
Here, for the first
time, is a comparison of Kip McKean's public reading with the original:
Click here to see the original
Christian Chronicle article (138K jpg)
Click here to read the article below while
you listen to Kip McKean's (4 min, 35 second) public reading in
Click here to download and
install
KEY (italics in parentheses) = incidental words
added by Kip McKean blue type = text omitted in the taped reading by
McKean
[Kip McKean begins - after brief intro:]
Regular
readers of the Christian Chronicle know that we have made a diligent effort to
keep open the lines of communications between the brotherhood as a whole and
that part of our fellowship known as the Boston/Crossroads movement.
In the pages of the
Chronicle, we have told of their church plantings, their evangelistic seminars,
their large number of baptisms and their $1.8 million dollar missions
contribution on one Sunday. Reputable publications distinguish between
subjective opinion pieces and objective news stories. We want to continue to
carry some of their news in this monthly newspaper as we have opportunity.
Although we
have stated before our concerns about the Boston/Crossroads movement, numerous
readers have concluded that, because we tell news about these brethren, we
approve and consent to all that they teach
and do. This is not the case at all.
The truth is
that we find ourselves increasingly
concerned about the excesses of this movement. We also feel that we have the
responsibility to spell out what we believe to be some of the more serious errors in the teaching and practice of this segment of the
Restoration Movement.
First and
foremost, the Boston/Crossroads churches take away individual Christian liberty
from their members.
[omitted:] They do this by speaking where the Bible does not speak and
binding man-made religious laws on people who should be free in Christ. The
leaders of this type of congregation believe they have the right to go beyond
the Scriptures and create commandments that members must follow.
If the members protest these human laws, they pay the
consequences. They are shamed, shunned and either forced into line or forced
out of the fellowship. While we also believe in church discipline, we believe
that withdrawal of fellowship must be exclusively on God’s law – not
man’s. [end of omitted
segment]
Leaders in
(the) Boston/Crossroads congregations or leaders in any other part of
our fellowship have no more right to bind their opinions on their
“disciples” than Roman Catholic bishops and popes have to bind their
traditions on those who follow them. Jesus said, “You will know the truth,
and the truth will make(set) you
free.” The truth of God in its purity always makes men and women free.
Opinions of men, when elevated to the authority of divine oracles, make human
beings into slaves.
We contend
that the human commandments flowing from the leaders of the Boston/Crossroads
movement have no more right to exist than those of Pope (Paul John)John Paul II, (the Bagwhan)Bagwhan Shnee Rajneesh or Jim Jones of the
People’s Temple. Any time man-made religious laws appear, freedom in Christ disappears.
A second
serious error or the Boston/Crossroads movement is its system of leadership. It
is built on authority, power and intimidation.
[omitted:] The leaders (or leader) at the top of the authority pyramid
in the local congregation demand submission and obedience from their followers.
Each member has a person who is over him or her in a supervisory position, and
each member is accountable to his or her supervisor/discipler. A doctrine of
submission holds the pyramid together. At the very top of the congregational
pyramid of authority and power, one or two people gain mastery over the entire
congregation. [end of omitted
segment]
Adult men
and women are told by their leaders whom they should date, how many people are
to be in the automobile during a date, (and) how long a kiss can last
between two people in love, and what specific, daily religious duties a person
must perform. Leaders must be obeyed, not questioned. All of this is a far cry
from the teachings of Jesus when he said, “You know that the rulers of the
Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
It shall not be so among(st) you; but whoever would be great
among(st) you must your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your
slave(the slave of all).” The Boston/Crossroads type of
leadership tends to produce prima donnas in their(the) leadership and clones in the
pew. (I appreciate that.)
A third
serious error of the Boston/Crossroads movement is that it is inherently
divisive. Personal conversation with one of the leaders of this movement has
convinced me that this divisiveness begins in the heart because these brethren
do not really believe that there are any faithful churches except the
ones in their sphere of influence. (That person either has to be Al,
or Roger Lamb, or me – I don’t know who it is. Could have been all
three of us.) They consider themselves to be (quote) “the
faithful remnant.” The rest of us – regardless of the work we have
done, the results achieved and the years dedicated to the cause of Christ
– are apparently considered unfruitful, lukewarm or dead. The
Boston/Crossroads leaders have drawn a circle to keep out anyone who has not
submitted to their philosophy and method.
The
divisiveness continues when leaders of this movement decide to plant a church
in a new area of the world. They convince some faithful worker, who has been
groomed for years to be a church leader, that he is really wasting his time and
talent working among(for) the
“lukewarm” or “dead” churches where he himself was born
again. Through heavy doses of guilt and a steady stream of discouraging words,
the Boston/Crossroads movement persuades church leaders in the United States
and abroad to train at one of their bases like Boston or New York for two years
and then sends them out to plant a church that siphons off members of
the churches already planted.
[omitted:] It
saddens us to tell this story, but we believe it is the truth and that it can
be documented in place after place around the globe. We do not believe that
either the glowing report of large numbers of baptisms among the congregations
nor the obvious ills in some mainstream churches justify this kind of behavior.
We still want to keep open the lines of communication with
the Boston/Crossroads leaders and congregations because they are our brethren.
We still want to publish some of the news that flows from their exciting
efforts. We do not intend to let this issue or any other become a hobby horse
that we ride in each edition. [end of omitted
segment]
We do feel
the responsibility to let the brotherhood know, however, that we consider this
to be a dangerous movement within the body of Christ because it robs people of
their freedom in Christ, turns Christian leadership into an authoritarian power
structure and divides the body of Christ almost everywhere it appears.
In the words
of the apostle Paul, let us “be watchful.”
[omitted:] Let us also pray that the present doctrines and practices
that separate us may be corrected according to God’s will so that we may
all be one in Christ. – Howard W. Norton [end of omitted
segment; end of article]
Sources:
Howard W. Norton, "Second thoughts on Boston", The Christian
Chronicle (http://www.christianchronicle.org), Volume 44, Number 2,
February 1987, p. 22, reproduced by permission.
Kip
McKean, Be Perfectly United, DPI Archive Cassette Series, Tape # 4056,
1987.
(about audio
clips)
Click here to see the original
Christian Chronicle article (138K jpg)
The Christian
Chronicle article was indeed a historic turning point, but only because of
Kip McKean’s reaction to the article. Not only did McKean apparently
whitewash the article of its sharpest criticisms, he also left out its closing
plea for unity. McKean then misleadingly summed up the article as a line in the
sand drawn by the mainline Churches of Christ:
“Gang,
don’t kid yourself what that article means. That is a line, definitive
and sharp. And you may be asking a question: why the line? Let me tell you
something: it is basically doctrinal…. I really believe with all of
my heart that is an historic article. I believe that with all of my heart. And
I think it shows even more we’ve got to stick together. You know, when you
don’t have many friends, you need to value all that you have. In the sense
that my friendship list decreased somewhat in that article.”
Kip
McKean, Be Perfectly United, DPI Archive Cassette Series, Tape # 4056,
1987.
Is McKean right that
doctrine created the Boston/mainline schism? No, it seems the
cause-and-effect was the reverse. Division created the need for new
doctrine – and McKean used this very same speech to hammer home the
new doctrine of “disciples’ baptism.”
As division neared, the
movement needed doctrine to “prove” it was unique.
In the same
speech as his apparent misreading of the Christian Chronicle article,
Kip McKean solidified his new doctrine of “disciples’ baptism.”
McKean said that Jesus commanded the apostles in Matthew 28:19 to baptize
people who were already disciples – first to make disciples, and
then to baptize them:
“In Matthew
chapter 28, in verse 19, when Jesus appeared to the eleven on the Mount before
he ascended, he said, ‘go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
THEM’ – there they are – ‘baptizing THEM in the name of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching THEM to obey my
Father’s commands.’ I really believe, sisters, we need to get it on
straight: Who is a candidate for baptism? It is the individual who IS a
disciple.”
Kip McKean, Be
Perfectly United, DPI Archive Cassette Series, Tape # 4056, early 1987
[audible emphasis on “them” and “is” by McKean].
This interpretation of
Matthew 28:19 hinged on the pronoun “them,” which McKean interpreted
to mean "disciples." (6) But this interpretation is wrong
for at least two reasons:
The original Greek for “make
disciples” (matheteuo) in Matthew 28:19 is a single word
(verb), not two words (verb + object).(7) This changes
everything: “them” can’t possibly mean “disciples" –
“them” is referring to the “nations.” It would have been
more grammatically correct for Kip McKean to teach: “You must become a
nation first, and then get baptized." (Of course, it's absurd to say
that a person can become a nation.)
Even considering the English NIV
translation of Matthew 28:19 without the Greek, we can see that word
order does not necessarily indicate an order of procedure. Just because the
verb "make" appears before the verb "baptizing," would not necessarily mean
that first you must make disciples, and then baptize them.(8)
The ICC transition
toward this flawed doctrine is obvious when when looks at
ICC leadership's baptism
quotes over the years. ICC leaders continue to teach “become a
disciple” and then get baptized(9). Sometimes it is phrased as
baptizing people “who have made the decision to be disciples."(10)
Author Rick Bauer has noted "clear and repeating [ICC] contradictions and
inconsistencies on 'the decision to be a disciple' vs. 'being baptized as a
disciple'"(11). Both things are taught simultaneously, even though they appear
to contradict. As one observer said, "If I made the decision to become a
doctor, I still am not a doctor."(12)
One of the ICC's Kingdom
Teachers has distanced himself further from McKean's original teaching on
disciples' baptism. Doug Jacoby writes that "the text does not say that one
must become a saved disciple before being baptized, that would be impossible,
since baptism is necessary for forgiveness." Jacoby then goes on to say
that "[Matthew 28:19] strongly implies, however, that the candidate
for baptism is prepared to give his life over to the Lord in discipleship"
prior to baptism. (13) But if “them” is referring to the
“nations,” Jacoby's point is moot -- Matthew 28:19 by its very
grammar can't be used to support pre-baptism requirements for individuals
("disciples"). Pre-baptism commitment may be a noble thing, but the ICC's
exclusive interpretation of this Bible verse is unsupportable.
The ICC’s claim to
being the “only true church” rests largely on this doctrine of
disciples’ baptism. This doctrine – and the ICC’s whole claim to
exclusivity – is built on sinking sand.
(1) James
Burton Coffman, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Firm Foundation
Publishing House, Austin, TX, 78767, p. 90.
(2) This fact might startle ICC members, but it is true (keep
in mind that not every verse about baptism or evangelism is a command). See I
Corinthians 4: 3-5, Romans 14:1, 14:4, 14:10,14:13, James 4:11-12 for commands
about not judging.
(3) Wyndham
Shaw (Boston Church of Christ Elder), “Working with the Fallaway” in The
Leader’s Resource Handbook, Ed. Thomas Jones, DPI, Woburn, MA, p.
101.
(4) Bo Reed,
article <4p6q6k$sb0@news-f.iadfw.net>,
alt.religion.christian.boston-church, n.d.
(5) Kip McKean (ICC founder),
Be Perfectly United, DPI Archive Cassette Series, Tape # 4056,
1987.
(6) The ICC has also cited John 4:1 (“The Pharisees heard
that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John”) as
evidence for disciples’ baptism, but this verse doesn’t mandate an
order of procedure (making and then baptizing) any more than Matthew
28:19 does. Furthermore, these examples in John 4 should not be considered New
Covenant baptism, since Jesus had not yet died.
(7) Senior ICC leaders have occasionally noted that the Greek
word for “disciple” in the Great Commission is a verb, somehow
without considering the implications this has for “disciples’
baptism.”
(8) Imagine the somewhat parallel premise, “go and make popsicles,
freezing them in the icebox…” If people were given this command to
“make popsicles,” would they conclude it was their job to make the
Popsicles first and then freeze them? Hardly – the order of the
words was incidental to the command. (Note: this example only parallels the
English grammar of Matthew 28 – the original Greek grammar is not
parallel).
(9) Mike
Taliaferro (Geographic Sector
Leader), The Killer Within: An African Look at Disease, Sin and Keeping
Yourself Saved, DPI, Woburn, MA, 1997, p. 56
(10) Kip
McKean, “Revolution through Restoration”, Upside Down, April
1992, p. 12.
(11) Rick
Bauer, Toxic Christianity: The International Church of Christ/Boston
Movement cult, Bowie, MD: Freedom House, 1994.
(12) Joanne
Ruhland, alt.religion.christian.boston-church, March 22, 1996.
(13) Douglas
Jacoby, ACES e-mail #453, ACES World Sector, September 23, 2001.
