ICOC UPDATE 2005(Is the Threat Resurfacing?)By |
This is not so much an article as it is a reminder of the poisonous teachings, corrupt leadership methods, and spiritual abuse that had been spread throughout the membership of the International Churches of Christ in its short history by its self proclaimed leader, Kip McKean. It is a call for every member to reflect and compare the present to the past and for each to judge for themselves whether the threat of abusive leadership methods and flawed teachings are beginning to resurface within their individual congregations, or whether these abuses were ever really vanquished in the first place. As the mounting undercurrent of dissent, fueled by the undeniable truth, erupted and ripped through this world-wide organization in early 2003, a large portion of the leadership throughout the movement made public apologies for their participation in the widespread authoritative abuses that had brought about psychological, emotional, physical, and spiritual damage to thousands of members and became the trademark of the ICOC. ( read: Honest to God by Henry Kriete, and Mike Leatherwood’s Letter to the Leadership of the NYC church) Many of those in leadership resigned or were asked to leave, or were plain old “fired” by congregations that still had the ability to do so. Among those who resigned, shortly before the upheaval, was the man at the top, Kip McKean, from the position of Lead Evangelist. He published a letter of resignation and apology in November 2002 in which he took responsibility for all of the abuses wrought by others in leadership, which had been fostered by his corrupt teachings and views. He then faded from the forefront. As the shock waves of Henry Kriete’s letter spread like wildfire within the movement, Kip appeared to drop from the leadership altogether. The movement known as the International Churches of Christ crumbled as a corporate entity. According to the 2004 International Leadership Conference of affiliated churches, the ICOC no longer exists as an organization with a headquarters, structure, or hierarchy where a single church is set up over any other churches. Left in the wake of the eruption that cost the ICOC churches almost 25% of their total membership were thousands of people trying to pick up the pieces of their shattered Christian lives as they struggled to hold their individual congregations together or moved on in search of new Christian fellowships. Some churches, scattered throughout the US and overseas, survived the upheaval intact and severed their ties with the ICOC affiliation. And the once arrogant organization, a fleet of over 430 churches boasting that it was God’s modern day movement, was reduced to a smaller group of affiliated churches trying to rebound and stay afloat in the turbulent seas. Three of the largest US churches: Boston, Atlanta and NYC all lost over 30 per cent of their membership totals between Dec 2002 and Dec 2004. And the jewel of the ICOC, the LA church, which began to see the numerical losses prior to Feb 2003 (possibly a contributing factor in Kip being asked to step down as lead evangelist in LA) dropped over 3,000 from its membership total from Dec 2001 to Dec 2004. That is over 35 percent of the 2001 membership total. According to current statistics published by an ICOC information web site ( www.icocinfo.org) the total membership numbers of the European churches is less than 1/3 of what it enjoyed at the end of 2002. Less than a year after God’s hand, according to some in leadership, had moved against them because of their gross sin and arrogance, Kip McKean resurfaced in a position of leadership within the ICOC affiliated Portland (Oregon) church and began to publish articles which spoke to the remaining ICOC membership, those in the sister churches, with the same attitude of authority that he had wielded when he was lead evangelist over the entire movement. And it was apparent from these articles that he expected members to acknowledge him and others in leadership with the reverence due them, claiming once again that they were God’s chosen leaders. The theme of these articles and editorials came across like, ‘Yes, we have made mistakes, but its time to get past that and for all of you to fall back in line.’ |
Problem is, many of those who remained in leadership, some who even refused to step down at the request of their congregations, had never changed from the old school, abusive, authoritarian mindset that plagued the ICOC for so many years. Neither, it appeared from the articles, had Kip McKean. In his resignation/apology letter Kip had taken full responsibility for causing people to feel “bitterness” toward the leadership, a “bitterness” he has now for more than a year been reprimanding people for still feeling. It appears as though he threw a blanket of specified time over everyone and now that time is up. In his articles he has been stating that people pretty much just need to get over themselves and stop acting like ungrateful children. It comes across as though he is admitting that the leadership has sinned against the people, but since the people owe the leadership for their very salvation the people need to stop acting like children and show some gratitude. In addition they need to show some compassion for the rough time the leaders have had at the hands of these “bitter” members. This may seem like a harsh example, but it’s similar to a rich abusive husband admitting to his wife that he has abused her physically, verbally, and psychologically, but if it weren’t for him she would still be living in a trailer park so she needs to show some gratitude and stop fussing about the abuse. Yes, Kip McMean does admit that he and the leadership of the ICOC have sinned against the people. He has admitted it several times. But, in his article, I am Not Ashamed (07/04/2004), Kip speaks about a leadership couple and their sins,
Kip actually compares the abusive sin of the ICOC leadership with the sin of Moses striking a rock in anger instead of speaking to it the way God had told him to do. Kip actually compares the widespread authoritarian abuses, spiritual abuses, psychological abuses, and emotional devastation that were heaped upon the majority of the membership for years with Peter having a moment of weakness and fear where he denied Jesus three times. Does Kip actually believe that these widespread abuses that were heaped upon the people for so long that the retention rate of the ICOC declined drastically for several years prior to 2003 is comparable to Moses striking a rock in a moment of anger or Peter having a moment of cowardice? Does Kip really consider the thousands of acts of abuse and manipulative practices and flawed teachings that went on for so many years simply “mistakes” made while attempting “great deeds of faith”? I wonder if Kip would consider a five car pile up caused by a drunk driver in which many people suffered lasting, debilitating injuries comparable to a dented fender caused by a flustered student driver in which only his grade was injured. Of course both are to be forgiven, but which of the two people would Kip most consider giving a job of elementary school bus driver? And if Kip did put the “repented” drunk driver behind the wheel, would he actually reprimand those that had been injured in the pile up because they were reluctant to get on the bus? And as for Moses, his little sin, his “mistake” cost him the privilege of entering the Promised Land. Given this, how do you think God feels about an abusive leadership that caused thousands of people to turn away from Him? Take a trip through the Old Testament and find out. And don’t be disillusioned. There are thousands of ex-members that left and turned from God because they were beaten down and made to feel unworthy of Him. If just ONE person misses out on eternal salvation because of the abuse heaped on them by the ICOC leadership, how devastating do you think that is to God? Look at what happened to the nation of Israel from time to time at the hands of the accepted religious leadership. God was very angry because of it. He even warned the people not to put their trust or loyalty in men. And Jesus didn’t get together with the Pharisees and say, “Guys, you’ve made some mistakes here”. After reading Kip McKean’s 8 part series of articles entitled, The Mandate of God for World Evangelism, written in early 2004, I felt the strong need to write to him. The series gave me a strong sense that Kip hadn’t really grasped the magnitude of the kind of abusive authority that he had created and fostered or of the magnitude of spiritual, emotional and psychological devastation that so many people were struggling to repair. I placed a phone call to the Portland, Oregon church office number late one night in June 2004 to leave a message requesting Kip McKean’s email address. To my surprise, Kip McKean answered the phone. The main office number of the Portland church was Kip McKean’s home phone number. I guess I didn’t fully understand his top leadership role at that church. |
After speaking with him briefly, and obtaining his email address in order to write him, I penned a letter. The following is a revised version of that letter. It has been revised for this article for the purpose of clarity and additional information that I did not have at the time. The issues discussed and the flavor of the letter remains the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kip McKean never provided me with a written response. I contacted him again about a month after I wrote him this letter and he responded that he did not remember reading it so he must not have received it. I e-mailed it to him again. He wrote back stating that he didn’t type so well as to have the time to compose a letter dealing with my issues, but that I should feel free to call him anytime. He stated that we would probably have a good conversation, but in the end probably not agree on everything. Given his response, I have yet to call him. I found it odd, though, that a month after I first sent this letter to him, an article appeared on the Portland church website entitled The Mandate of God for World Evangelism Part IX – The Dream: The Evangelization of the World in a Generation. Here was a ninth part to his series which began, “It has become necessary to write one more essay in the series, The Mandate of God for World Evangelism.” In the article Kip stated, |
So, any of the former leaders that questioned this belief and teaching, as I did in the letter, Kip considers to be “in error” claiming “they do not know the Scriptures or the power of God”. Kip then goes on to say,
In Matthew 28:19-20 (which has been coined as the ‘Great Commission’), Jesus says, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…” (niv) The KJV reads, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…” The NAS reads, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations…”. I haven’t yet found a translation that quotes Jesus as saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations and I explicitly mean that it must be done within one generation.” In Mark 16:15 Jesus says, “Go into all the nations and preach the good news to all creation.” (niv) I haven’t yet found a translation that quotes Jesus as saying, “Go into all the nations within one generation because that is my Father’s dream and expectation.” From viewing the Scriptures I failed to comprehend how Kip could ever make such a claim. Further in his article, Kip explained about a Biblical generation being 50 to 80 years and then stated,
Let me repeat Kip’s last statement with emphasis added. “This indirectly was Jesus' explicit command to the faithful eleven, ‘Go to all the nations and baptize them!’ Inferred, the apostles were to accomplish this task through the multiplication of disciples in their lifetime.” Now I understand my confusion. It was never directly stated. It was never a direct command from Jesus. And it was never directly explained how it would be accomplished. It was done “indirectly”. It was “inferred”. If so, then how is it that Kip McKean (2000 years later) has this sole special knowledge of what Jesus indirectly inferred in His command to the eleven? Where is any Scriptural support which absolutely confirms this claim? All Kip has is a generalized comment by Paul (Col 1:6), and this claim of his as to what Jesus indirectly inferred in his command to the apostles. Did I miss something in my studies on Biblical exegesis? I have not found a translation of the Bible, not one study Bible or chain-link reference Bible that includes this supposed indirect inference in the side notes or foot notes. And I haven’t found a commentary that has ever made reference to what Kip claims that Jesus indirectly inferred in his command to the eleven. So, where does Kip get the support for his idea that Jesus indirectly inferred in His command to the eleven that evangelizing the world was to be done in their lifetime? Well, given what Kip has claimed himself to be on occasion, “God’s man” leading “God’s movement”, perhaps it was divine inspiration. There is no reference anywhere in Scripture to support Kip’s idea that it was Jesus’ command or God’s dream, expectation or mandate for the world to be evangelized in a single generation. And if we are to take the words of Jesus literally or directly, “Go into all the nations...”, then the apostles failed because the gospel didn’t make it into ALL the nations of the world in their lifetime, and nowhere near it by 62 A.D. And if this command was to the “faithful eleven”, to be accomplished “in their lifetime”, why does Jesus finish His discourse with the following words, |
Matthew 28:20 is the continuation of 28:19 and the sentence above is the final part of the phrase. Many translations don’t even have it as the beginning of a new sentence. The original Greek gives no evidence that in verse 20 this phrase should be a separate sentence from the instruction that Jesus begins in verse 19. So there are two points to His discourse that the apostles never accomplished. They never reached “all the nations” and they never lived long enough for Jesus to be with them until the “end of the age”. Jesus’ discourse could not have been just for the “faithful eleven” to be accomplished in their lifetime. Jesus made this world. Jesus knew how many nations there were in it even then. He knew that there were parts of the world that the apostles would never hope to reach in their lifetime. Again, it wasn’t until the 1400’s or later that anyone crossed the Atlantic Ocean to discover the western hemisphere. So Jesus’ instruction could not have been for the apostles to be completed in their short lifetime. It was for all disciples down through the centuries, assuring them that as they go to fulfill His instructions throughout the world that He will be with them, even to the end of the age. I will go so far as to assert by Jesus’ final words in verse 20 that He knew it would take until the end of the age to accomplish His instructions. I further assert that this is why He stated in Matthew 24 that the gospel would be preached in all the world and then the end (end of the age) would come. But those are my assertions, not to be confused with Biblical fact, and I am certainly not about to try and suggest that I somehow know what Jesus was actually thinking or inferring, or try to create a doctrine based on them. Kip further stated in part IX of his Mandate series,
Kip goes on to explain that evangelizing even an entire city doesn’t mean that everyone in that city would become a disciple. It simply means that the city would become saturated with the gospel. He then states, “To evangelize the world, would be to fill it with the teaching of Jesus as the early Christians did Jerusalem.” Did you catch that? Kip says that evangelizing the world would be “to fill it with the teaching of Jesus as the early Christians did Jerusalem.” In other words, to saturate the world with the gospel as fully as had been done in Jerusalem. As stated before, Kip teaches that the apostles accomplished this huge undertaking by 62 A.D. But that just didn’t happen by 62 A.D. It would be ridiculous, not to mention a blatant disregard for all we know of history, to think so. For that to have happened, the gospel would’ve had to have touched and saturated every single nation (all the nations) all over the globe. But that just didn’t happen by 62 A.D. |
If there had existed even just one disciple preaching the gospel in each of even the ‘established’ nations on the earth at that time (by 62 A.D.) then it could be argued that the apostles fulfilled the mission that Jesus had given them and they had done it in one generation. But there is not one shred of historical evidence to support even that. There is plenty of historical evidence which stands in opposition to that idea, but none to support it. So why does Kip persist in this line of thinking? Ask him. Perhaps he holds onto the passages in Colossians without understanding the basis on which Paul wrote that epistle or Paul’s usage of a linguistic device used throughout Scripture known as ‘hyperbole’ (exaggeration for emphasis and contrast). The reason that Paul even wrote the Colossian epistle was to combat false teachings that had arisen there. These teachings came to be known as the Colossian Heresy. In a nutshell, the heresy was an amalgam of heretical beliefs being presented as true Christianity, and even more an enlightened form of Christianity. Without the understanding of the situation that Paul was combating with this epistle, one may be confused or even misled by certain language contained within it. The heresy took on a pretense of being of philosophical character and higher wisdom, an issue addressed by Paul in verses such as Colossians 2:3-4 and 8. Heresy advocates instituted ascetic rules which Paul addressed in verses such as Colossians 2:20-23. It promoted the worship of angels which Paul addressed in verses such as Colossians 2:15, 18-19 and 1:16. It promoted certain Judaistic legalism which Paul addressed in verses such as Colossians 2:14, 16-17. The heresy denied the incarnation of Christ and taught that Jesus did not have a real human body, thus Paul’s strong emphasis on the incarnation and the Deity of Christ in verses such as Colossians 1:16-22 and 2:9. The advocates of the heresy taught that people could only attain spiritual completeness by embracing these teachings and participating in ceremonies that they prescribed. Thus Paul emphasized over and over again that all believers are complete in Christ (Col 1:19-20, 2:9-10, 1:28). Furthermore, the heresy contained and flaunted an exclusivity of mystery, secrecy, and superiority. It spouted the elitist element of ‘special’ knowledge for a special few, a so-called ‘knowledge’ acquired through mystical experiences as opposed to intellectual apprehension. It was not for everyone, only those privileged enough to be “in the know”. And yet, it was being pushed as the true gospel. This was the backdrop against which Paul wrote,
The NAS reads, “…the gospel that has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing…” Paul was explaining that the true gospel that had been introduced to the Colossians is the same as that which had been introduced everywhere else. The true gospel was a universal message for everyone in the world in contrast to the heretical teaching arising in their midst that the gospel was for a special few. Paul continues this line of thought in Colossians 1:23 warning them not to be moved from the true gospel which is the same that had been preached everywhere else and of which Paul claimed to be a servant. In both verses Paul uses the linguistic device of ‘hyperbole’ to emphasis and contrast his message of the universal true gospel with that of the false gospel of exclusivity contained in the heresy.
Again, Paul’s emphasis in this verse (and in Col 1:6) is the universality of the true gospel which has been offered to all alike, “every creature”, without reserve, in contrast to the false gospel of exclusivity contained in the Colossian Heresy. It should be obvious that Paul was by no means suggesting that the gospel had been preached to animals or fish or birds or insects by the phrase “every creature”, as there was not a command to even preach to creatures (animals, birds, fish, etc.). Nor could he have been suggesting that at that time the gospel had been preached to every single human or that the gospel had reached the farthest corners of the planet. If it had, as Kip claims, why did the Apostles feel the need to keep on preaching? If everyone had heard it, who would there be to preach to? This is clearly the use of ‘hyperbole’, exaggeration for emphasis and contrast. The true gospel is a global message to all men everywhere all over the world as opposed to an exclusive message to an elite group. If you understand the history behind the epistle, Paul’s language makes perfect sense. |
One final point on this subject concerns the use of the word “world” in Col 1:6. The Greek words that are translated into the English word “world” carry with them various meanings: the known world, the part of the world ruled by Rome, the cosmos, the entire planet known as earth, the corrupt world system. The meaning for each usage of the word “world” depends on the context of the part of Scripture in which it lives. For example, Luke writes,
We know that this usage of “all the world” could not possibly mean the entire planet because the Roman empire didn’t have the authority to tax the entire planet. Their influence and rule was limited to a certain geographical area of the planet. They didn’t even know that the western hemisphere existed. The context, therefore, suggests the meaning be that of the Roman occupied territories. And, in fact, the NIV translates that phrase in Luke 2:1 as, “…the entire Roman world.” Sometimes the word “world” is used as exaggeration to make a point, as in the following case.
We know from the Gospels and Paul’s epistles that at no time did the entire planet go after Jesus. At no time during His life did the entire Roman world go after Him. At no time during His life did the entire nation of Israel go after Him. We never even see in Scripture the entire population of one single city (Jerusalem) go after Him. So the context, coupled with Scriptural fact, suggests that this usage cannot be anything but exaggeration for the purpose of making a point. Given this, history, and other Scriptural facts, how can anyone look at the usage of the word “world” in Colossians 1:6 and claim that it’s meaning can only be that of the entire planet? It baffles me how a man who claims to be such a champion of God’s word and scriptural insight can fail to grasp or to exercise the most basic guidelines of Biblical exegesis. Don’t get me wrong, evangelizing the world in one generation is a noble idea. It’s even a great dream to have. To have a heart for the lost is admirable. But to try and teach that evangelizing the entire world in one generation is a Biblical command, Biblical expectation, the “mandate of God”, or that it had been accomplished once already by 62 A.D. is utterly ridiculous. It is also quite dangerous, as we have seen from the past practices of the ICOC leadership. When you have leaders berating and chastising people for failing to meet numerical goals such as the ones that the leadership of the ICOC put on its members for so many years, something is terribly wrong. I have dozens of tapes of leaders, Kip McKean being one of them, harshly chastising people for failing to meet his numerical expectations. I have a tape of Kip McKean yelling at people to “CRANK” in reference to increasing membership numbers. This is part of the harsh abusive practices that beat down, discouraged and burned out so many people, and that most of the former leaders of the ICOC apologized for. Yet Kip McKean continues to spout the following rhetoric.
From this one comment it is clearly evident that this man has no concept of the emotional, psychological, spiritual and physical damage he has caused so many thousands of people. And I have a news flash for him. Some people tried speaking up, but they were treated harshly for doing so. Some were even removed from the membership labeled as rebellious or divisive. Others simply submitted to the chastisement they underwent at the hands of leadership. When someone you have trusted as a spiritual leader is chastising you for failure to produce what he is claiming is Biblically expected numerical growth and leads you to believe that you are in danger of being “sawed off the vine”, it’s pretty intimidating. I have the tapes. (read: Quotes Additional Quotes, Still More Quotes, Bring Forth Fruit ) Kip, himself, even stated in his resignation/apology letter dated Nov., 2002,
Hello! Had he forgotten these very words that he, himself, had penned a year and a half earlier? Were the words he penned in his resignation/apology letter just words to appease the devastated members of the ICOC? According to his own apology, the reluctance on the part of many to speak up was not because “bitterness came into their hearts causing them to ‘resent’ the dream”, but because, “My anger has often shut people down and, worse yet, fostered an environment where people were afraid to speak up.” Hello! Kip admitted that it was his fault that these people didn’t speak up because he “fostered an environment” of fear and intimidation. And many high up in leadership, such as Steve Johnson, admitted they, too, had created the same type of environment in their ministries. A year and a half after Kip’s resignation/apology letter he was singing a different tune, putting the fault of not speaking up squarely on the members claiming that it was due to their own “bitterness” of heart. Once again, he has shifted the blame to the members, something he has often done before. I find it utterly amazing that people can look at this man, Kip McKean, read what he writes and listen to what he preaches, yet still not see him for what he truly is. So how much in the ICOC affiliated churches HAS changed in the last two years? What allegiance, if any, are they giving to Kip McKean? We invite all comments on this issue. |