[Article 1] The ICC's Corrupt Policies for Money (Part 1)

This article is available for download in PDF format here
A file with all the articles is available for download here

[The Articles of Indignation: Article 1]

Corrupt Policies of the International Christian Church: Part 1

By Daniel Berg           June 25, 2015

I was a member of the ICC for six years. At the time that I was baptized I believed that the ICC was the Church of God since the doctrine matched the beliefs of the early Christians, and indeed those who reached out to me were honest people.  I was aware that Kip had some criticisms about his past but he addressed these in front of the congregation and apologized for his misconduct. I decided to trust Kip despite his past because I believed he had repented; even King David in the Bible fell into sin, so I trusted that Kip had repented the same way that King David had.

If the Church had stayed the way it was back when I was baptized, I would still be there, worshipping alongside everyone else. Unfortunately, after Kip got his Church started and got enough momentum going, he began to take the Church in a different direction and the Church evolved into something else.  The Church began to introduce some odd policies and make some questionable decisions that all seemed to revolve around money issues, and these changes were introduced using manipulative methods. There have been many people who have brought their concerns before the leadership on these issues, and the leaders always give the same excuse; “the Church is not perfect, everyone makes mistakes”. The Church is not expected to be perfect, but it is expected to repent; and there has been no repentance shown here.

Contribution Raises

The first such issue was the Churches now current policy of raising the contribution of the congregation twice a year.  In the beginning the reason provided for having these contribution increases was that the church was in a financial state of emergency and the congregation was told that as disciples they all needed to pitch in to help out.  The contribution was raised a couple times once again citing a “financial emergency” as the reason.  At first the leaders request for additional financial support from the congregation was of a humble demeanor; “Please help us to spread the gospel” they said, “we are asking you to sacrifice so that more can be saved.”  These “financial emergencies”, however, had happened 3 consecutive times exactly six months apart from each other like clockwork. At the third contribution raise the leadership still seemed to be “asking” the congregation to increase the money they were giving, however, they would drop subtle phrases such as “let’s be spiritual and do this.” Did this mean to imply that those who did not raise their contribution by the amount that was asked would be considered “unspiritual”? But since they still only appeared to be “asking” at this time I didn’t hold these comments against them and assumed it was just another one of those “honest mistakes” that the leadership seemed to be making lately. When I questioned the leadership on this pressure that they were putting on the congregation they backpedaled and said “we are only asking.” I was beginning to sense that something wasn’t right, however, to have all these financial emergencies six months apart from each other consecutively; I remember thinking that the Church must have had the worst financial planning team of all time. If another such emergency were to occur, the leadership should have been asking for forgiveness from their congregation for mismanaging their money.

Another six months after the last “financial emergency” occurred, the attitude of the leadership suddenly changed.  They told the congregation that they needed to raise their contribution once again, however, no longer was there any reason given to justify this raise (besides the “reason” that I refer to as the “universal excuse” which I will address later).  In addition to this, no longer was the leadership “asking” the congregation to increase the money they were giving.  Now they were using the word “calling”.  Now why is this a big difference?  In this context the word “called” is an intermediary word because it has a more insistent tone toward whoever this word is directed to than just simply using the word “asking”.  At the same time it also falls just short of flat out demanding.  It implies that the person to whom this word is directed has an important duty to comply with the action with which this word is being referenced.  Therefore we see that it actually has a psychological effect; you see if a member is “asked” to raise their contribution but declines then it may be assumed that the member had a reason for doing so due to financial situations or other reasons. But if a member is “called” to raise their contribution; declining to do something that they were “called” to do psychologically implies that they have broken some form of trust or backed out on a commitment.  The tactful use of this word by the ICC leaders allows them to put a significant amount of psychological pressure on the congregation to comply with their money increases. It says in 2 Corinthians 9:7 that we should not give under compulsion; that we should give what we have decided in our heart to give.  The only commitment that these members should be “called” to meet is whatever amount has been set in their hearts, not an amount dictated by the upper leadership.  If we are pressuring our members to raise their contribution twice a year, aren’t we forcing our members to give under compulsion? 

When I brought up my concerns that the decisions of the leaders were in violation of scripture, the response I received back was “we have been doing this all along, and we are doing it to evangelize the world”.  This is the reasoning that I refer to as “The Universal Excuse” and I have written an entire article on this subject alone.  The ICC leaders use the phrase “we have been doing this” as if this was something that the congregation had decided on;  I definitely know that this was not the case, however, since I prefer to be thorough I will explain why this could not have possibly happened for the sake of those that were converted afterward. Let’s first rewind back to 2008; before the policy of increasing contributions was established and before the “financial emergencies” that preceded it.  If Kip McKean had presented his new policy for raising contributions before the congregation at this time and had he attempted to cite “evangelizing the world” as his reasoning, there would have been at least one observant person who would have noticed that this clearly violates 2 Corinthians 9:6-7. Then suppose that this person came forward and asked “how does this claim of evangelizing the world justify the establishment of a policy that is in clear violation of biblical scripture? If we are going to evangelize the world shouldn’t we do it God’s way?” It would have taken only one person to come forward and ask this one simple question to send Kip’s proposed policy crashing to the ground, and back in 2008 there were still plenty of people in the Church who would have taken this stand.  Also, the congregation would have known that even if all the members that were currently present were personally willing to raise their contributions twice a year, they still would not have agreed to make this into a continuous policy since instituting this as Church policy would mean that any new converts who wanted to be "saved" would be pressured to go along with it as well.  This would mean that they would still be violating scripture (1 Corinthians 9:7) in the future, if not at that exact moment in time.  As a congregation that should have been focused on making converts for Jesus (and not for self-glory), this would have been taken into account. Of course the ICC has invented many other excuses to justify this policy in the years after its establishment and I have written other articles that expose these as well.  The fallacies in these reasonings meant to defend these corrupt policies become apparent once you realize how these policies were actually established.

Kip McKean knew that he could not simply present his new policy before the congregation; he needed some other way that would be less noticeable.

“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” –John 3:19-20

Kip had a difficult problem on his hands; how would he keep such a corrupt policy in the darkness and at the same time impose it on his congregation in broad daylight?

The true purpose of the consecutive “financial emergencies” in the beginning becomes apparent, these were used as a kick start device to first put the congregation into a routine mindset and then the factors of group psychology took over.  There is much to say about the effects of group psychology on an organization; well-known psychological authors such as Sigmund Freud and Gustave Le Bon have much to say about how being part of a collective group can affect the cognitive functions of the individuals of which that group is composed.  Le Bon writes: “The most striking peculiarity presented by a psychological crowd is the following: Whoever be the individuals that compose it, however like or unlike be their mode of life, their occupations, their character, or their intelligence, the fact that they have been transformed into a crowd puts them in possession of a sort of collective mind which makes them feel, think, and act in a manner quite different from that in which each individual of them would feel, think, and act were he in a state of isolation.” Le Bon comments further on the effects of this collective mind by saying; “In the collective mind the intellectual aptitudes of the individuals, and in consequence their individuality, are weakened. The heterogeneous is swamped by the homogeneous, and the unconscious qualities obtain the upper hand.” Sigmund Freud refers to this as the “herd instinct” or “group mind”, which leads to a lowering of an individual’s capacity to think in a more intelligent manner. I do not write this to insult the congregation’s intelligence (I was among them after all, I would be insulting myself), I could go on a whole lesson here about the dangers of group psychology; however, I am compelled not to become distracted from the subject at hand (I would highly suggest studying this out afterward, here are the links to the writings of Le Bon and Freud on this subject).

At the contribution raise six months after the last “financial emergency” no reason was given as to why the Church was doing this (besides the Universal Excuse, see my other article on this). They told the congregation members that they were “called” to raise their contribution, that this is “something that we have been doing” as if it was something that everyone had decided on a while ago. To deny the leadership’s tactically obscure claim that they "had been doing this all along" would be the same as calling them all liars, this is something that they were afraid to do for fear of being put out of the Church. Also, if no one else was panicking about this then why doubt their friends in the Church who were going along with it? They were being told that this was something that everyone was doing, that it was something that “they had been doing”; as if to distort their perception of past events. It was the basic “everyone is doing it” peer pressure that worked effectively on us as kids and still works on us as adults to this day. Not wanting to believe that they were being lied to, the congregation surrendered themselves to this policy; telling themselves "we are doing this to evangelize the world" to justify the leaders actions in their own minds. After all, putting the original reasons aside, they had been raising their contributions for the previous two years hadn't they? So in a sense the leaders claim that "this is what we have been doing all along" was not exactly a lie.  Thus most of the congregation willingly convinced themselves to go along with this policy which was established using deceitful means. There were many people who left the Church during this time; however, Kip was still able to successfully keep the majority of his members. He could make up for any money lost due to the people who left by taking increasing amounts from the remaining members and the contributions of any new converts would be steadily increased as well, thus it became a very profitable policy for him.

“Financial Workshops”

            New converts are not told about the continuous contribution raises during the “first principles studies” since telling potential converts about this policy up front would be bad for recruitment. Instead, a “financial workshop” is hosted a month or two prior to a contribution raise or at least once a year which every member was required to go to. These “workshops” served to introduce the policy for contribution raises to the new converts once they have been given enough time to become emotionally attached to their new friends in the Church and thus easier to persuade. Now when you hear the words financial workshop you usually expect that the subject matter would be learning how to best manage your money and how to make responsible financial decisions since other Churches actually do hold such financial workshops from time to time.  These “financial workshops” hosted by the ICC were more like pep rallies where the ICC’s current financial budget was presented to the Church and then various leaders would go up to speak before the congregation on why they needed more money and thus the current contribution raise would be presented. They would then quote verses such as Acts 4:32-37 where the disciples sold everything they had , telling their membership that they needed to give up everything to give to the ICC leadership’s goal of “evangelizing the world” (or so they claim that this is their goal) and that this is what disciples of Jesus were called to do.

If these “financial workshops” were merely for financial planning for the Church then why are all members of the congregation required to attend when they are obviously not involved with the financial planning process?  The actual function of these workshops as pep rallies to get more money out of the congregation was becoming increasingly apparent.

 

At these workshops the new members are still not made aware that these contribution raises will be held continuously twice a year. When it comes to the repetitiveness of these contribution raises the ICC seems to adopt a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy toward the congregation; since telling their membership that they will be pressured to increase their contribution to the Church at regular intervals would no doubt negatively affect their member retention. After a member has been with the ICC a couple years the realization will eventually dawn on them that these contribution raises are indeed held twice annually. This explains one of the main reasons that ICC converts will leave after being with the organization for about two years, however, since the belief that leaving the Church means losing their salvation has been so hammered into many of them at this point that they feel compelled to stay in the ICC even after they have become aware of the nature of this policy.

In recent years, however, this realization has come upon the newer members at a much earlier time since the ICC leaders have also deemed it necessary to address the older members who have already raised their contributions numerous times and thus need additional reassurance in order to prevent any kind of uproar. The tradeoff is that the new converts get tipped off about the redundant nature of this contribution policy much earlier than the central leadership would like.  To quell any frustrations among the older members during these contribution raises Kip McKean tells the Church that people who have been members for four years or longer are “exempt from having to raise their contributions”. The irony of this statement is that biblically (2 Corinthians 9:6-7) everyone in the Church should be exempt from having to raise their contributions by amounts dictated by other people.  Kip’s statement here is completely meaningless, especially since he tells his region leaders that they are required to raise the total contribution of their regions by a specific amount.  By giving his region leaders such a specific requirement the only way for them to be sure to meet Kip’s demand is to put pressure on all their members to raise their contributions regardless of whether or not they have been promised that they are “exempt” from doing so.  This was definitely the case when Kip first issued this statement in 2014 and then the older members were still being told that they were “unspiritual” unless they increased their contributions once again, even after they had already increased the money they were giving the Church twice a year for the past four years.  These were not “honest mistakes” since the region leaders themselves were actually telling people who were in discipler positions to coerce the people that they were “discipling” into giving more money by labeling those who didn’t as “unspiritual” or “selfish”.  Therefore, Kip’s reassurance of the older members supposedly being “exempt” served only as an attempt ease their tensions but nothing more; in the end this was merely another empty promise.

I also recall an instance when a certain contribution raise was sprung on the congregation one Sunday when there was no financial workshop and no previous announcement. The ICC leader in charge of the region at the time simply said at the end of the service; “The Church is calling everyone to raise their contributions”, and then he passed out the “contribution cards” (in this case they were actually just scraps of paper, but usually they use cards prepared beforehand). There were people who were disturbed by this since the following Sunday the same leader came before the Church once again and said, “Not enough of you raised your contributions last week, so we are doing it again”, and again he passed out the scraps of paper serving as contribution cards. He also told the members that they needed to put both their old and new contribution amounts on the front of the “card” where their name was, so if the numbers were the same anyone could tell at a glance while the plate was being passed around exactly who didn’t raise their contribution thus subjecting the members to social pressure. It should have been optional for a member to decide whether or not they raise their contribution, at least the ICC leaders claimed that this was the case whenever I confronted them. But with Kip McKean pressuring his leaders to meet their quotas, this no longer became optional for most of the membership.

I have much more to say, but for the sake of those reading this I chose to break down my writings of the ICC’s corruption into many separate articles since it would be far too much for some people to read in one sitting.

Conclusion of Part 1

This ends part one of this article. I would like to finish by addressing any concerns with the above material. If any wish to criticize me that my writings about psychological concepts being used against the congregation are just mere conjecture let me remind you that the realm of psychological study is mostly theoretical. It is a finicky subject that is much less structured than the concepts of mathematical laws or engineering to which I am more accustomed. When Sigmund Freud himself wrote his book on group psychology he refers to it as a theory, and yet his views are well respected. Not that I am trying to compare myself to Freud of course, however, I believe that I explain very well just how psychological theory plays out into many of the events that have unfolded since Kip McKean’s creation of the ICC and I present much evidence to support it. 

The reason that I write a defense for this article prior to the article’s release has to do with the nature of the organization that I am writing about. They resort to lowly character assassination tactics in order to attempt to discredit anyone who speaks out against them, and since most people who speak out against them are actually previous members whom they know, they find no trouble in pointing out their character flaws from the time they knew them. In the six years that I was with the ICC this has become highly predictable behavior. I have written an entire article devoted to this aspect of the organization alone where they often label any individual who speaks out against them as “prideful” or “bitter”. I refer to these two as the “prideful card” and the “bitter card” which they wave around as if they can magically dispel any argument that is made against them.

 In part two of this article I will write about the nature of the policies involving the “pledge cards” as well as the special contributions. Then after this I write about the final issue that relates to money directly by showing how the ICC leaders extort money from their members. Extortion is when coercion along with threats, blackmail, or some other use of force is used to get money from someone; I do not use this term lightly and I will show just how the actions of the ICC leaders meet this definition. This is made possible by the fact that in the last seven years, Kip McKean has done a good job of weeding out any “troublesome people” who would speak out against his methods, thus making it easier to establish more corrupt policies.