[Article 5] The ICC's Psychological Control System (Part 2): The Issue of Central Leadership

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 5]

The ICC’s Psychological Control System (Part 2): The Issue of Central Leadership

By Daniel Berg           June 25, 2015

Biblically, disciples can never rebel against authority, yet as seen with David who “chose” to transfer his allegiance from the ungodly Saul to the uncircumcised Achish (1 Sam 27:1-4) one is “free to choose” whom to submit to. – Kip McKean on his separation from the ICOC, Portland Story Archive, August 21, 2005

The ICC now claims that the true Christian church should be under a central leadership, similar to how the Pope is the central leader of the Catholic churches around the world. They state in their “core values” that the “Church of God” should have a central leadership with a central leader (as in one leader to rule them all). Since the ICC believes theirs to be the truest doctrine of all, Kip McKean asserts himself as the rightful world leader of the true “Kingdom of God” and the leader of all churches around the world that submit to him and are therefore part of “God’s one true Church.” Of course they often change this story when talking with outsiders (they tell them that other churches that are part of the “church universal” are saved), so as not to bring too much criticism against themselves, but as for members within their organization, they do their best to impose the belief on them that they need to be part of the one church that has a “central leadership with a central leader” in order to ensure their salvation (in other words, they need to be part of Kip McKean’s church in order to “be sure that they are saved”).

Let me first explain how this came to be. When I first joined the ICC in 2008 the leadership would often speak against the ICOC churches for becoming autonomous; saying that the Church needed a “point man” to lead their evangelical charge, however, this sentiment only manifested as the strong opinion of the leaders and was not yet being taught as a doctrinal (or salvation) requirement. In my early days with the ICC I remember having conversations with leaders and whenever this subject would come up they would give me reasons for why they thought that central leadership was the best system for evangelization, but they were not yet trying to impose this opinion on anyone as a required belief. No one back then was being taught in the first principles studies that the Church of God needed a “central leadership with a central leader”, this belief as a doctrinal requirement for “God’s Church” was not introduced into the church until later when Kip McKean introduced his “five core values”.

            During his leadership of the ICOC Kip McKean’s coercive tactics to obtain money were very successful, he could continually increase the pressure on the congregation and raise the special contribution and despite that they were being exploited many did not dare to leave because they believed that leaving the Church meant losing their salvation. When Kip McKean tried the same thing with the ICC, however, I didn’t work so well because as the ICC’s policies began to get more and more abusive many people began fleeing back to the ICOC. Even though the ICC attempts to spread propaganda about how “bad” the ICOC is, I hear that there are still many ICOC churches that are evangelistic and have discipling despite the ICC’s claims and therefore this propaganda was not enough to prevent people from leaving.

The ICOC was still too similar to Kip’s new organization; he needed some other way to convince the people that they would still go to hell if they left the ICC for the ICOC. Then Kip had an idea: central leadership. As I stated before, this began as an opinion of the upper leadership (a very strong opinion), they would voice this opinion often but as long as this stayed an opinion then I was willing to respect that, but then the ICC soon started to make this into a salvation issue. I was present at a leader’s meeting when an ICC leader came to the front and told the congregation “I have a new conviction” he said; “whoever goes from the ICC to the ICOC is going to hell because the ICOC does not have central leadership and they know that is wrong. We all need to have deep convictions in this”.

This so-called new “conviction” was soon being peddled around the fellowship by the other ICC leaders; when one of the sisters left the ICC to go to an ICOC church (this ICOC church was very evangelistic and it had discipling) the leaders called her and told her that she was “in the darkness” and that she was going to hell. When other people left to go to the ICOC as well, rather than saying “they went to the ICOC” the leaders would instead tell me that they “fell away from God”, that they had turned their backs on God and left their salvation behind. This idea of a one-man central leadership was being imposed on everyone as a salvation issue.   

Kip claims that the Church of God should be ruled by a central leader and bases this argument on the Old Testament setup; therefore they argue that just like Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, and that the Kingdom of Israel was ruled by King David, then “God’s Church” of today needed to be ruled by a single leader as well. The problem with this is that in the Old Testament God bestowed his Spirit upon a leader and used them to lead his people, but today this same spirit has been poured onto all of us (Acts 2:17-18). There is no longer any need to have one chosen person through which whom God will speak through; we all have the same access to God.

So desperate were the ICC leaders to try to find evidence for one-man central leadership in the New Testament that they would try to insert this issue into any sermon they could, particularly in scriptures about unity as if having a central leader was the answer to being “unified”, and they even attempted to preach this when the scriptures that they were using were actually contradicting their claims. I remember one Sunday when a leader was preaching on a passage in Acts 15 and came to the part which read:

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me.  Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

“‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild and I will restore it, that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’— things known from long ago.

 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” –Acts 15:12-21

The ICC leader then continued speaking and said that it was one man, James, who spoke up and therefore presided over the decision of the council. “James, one man, made the decision for the council” the leader said, holding up one finger on an outstretched hand; “You see, one man leadership”. The irony of this statement is, this scripture is probably the most compelling piece of evidence against central leadership in the entire New Testament. This leader could not have possibly picked a worse scripture to try to prove the point he was trying to make. If James was the central leader of the Church, then what was Peter’s position? The Bible states clearly that Peter was also present at this council in verse 6 of the same chapter (Acts 15:6). Many historical authors have made note of this and this has even caused some with catholic backgrounds to question whether Peter should have been considered to be the first Pope. In “Crossing the Threshold of Deception” by Rosanna J. Evans, she writes:

Among the more compelling arguments [for Peter not being pope], is that of the leadership at the Jerusalem Council. . . . What is of interest here, is not necessarily the proclamations made at this council, but the conspicuous position (or lack thereof) Peter held. While he was, without doubt, present at this momentous council, he certainly did not preside over it; this honor went to James, not Peter. Additionally, although Peter had some say in the procession itself, it was James, not Peter, who decided the outcome of the deliberations . . . Without a doubt, the man James was the one who presided over the Jerusalem Council.

The ICC leadership previously tried to argue that Peter was the “one man central leader” for the entire Church when reading the book of Acts until they come to this chapter which clearly puts this in doubt. Instead of considering the possibility that their arguments may have been in error they instead issued statements that were completely contradictory to what they were saying previously in an effort to twist this passage. This is completely opposite of the character of the noble-minded Bereans which they claim to imitate in their first principles studies.

Phillippians 4:10-20 is a passage in the Bible that sheds some light on how some of the Churches made decisions on financial issues.

Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid more than once when I was in need.

When Paul writes “not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving”, in the original Greek he actually uses this in business terms as an arrangement for financial support. The phrase “share with me” is sugkoinoneo which means to partake or participate in something. He had gone through Macedonia as part of his missionary journey and this was after he had been accepted by the Apostles. This scripture shows that many of the Churches did not agree to give Paul financial support, which means that many Churches individually decided what to do with their Church funds and who to hire or support financially. Not that Paul wanted to be hired as a permanent member of these Churches, but he did apparently ask for financial support from each Church to provide for his necessities as he was on his missionary journey. In such a situation it would be most economical to get aid from a Church in the closest proximity if you are constantly on the move. He noted that the Philippians were willing to send him the necessities he needed when his journey led him to Thessalonica.

Also consider Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. After Philip baptized him he simply went on his way did he not? And Kip preaches that he believes that it was this same eunuch that started the church in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian eunuch was an important official in charge of the treasury of Candace, the queen of the Ethiopians. You don’t see the disciples telling this eunuch that he needs to quit his job so that he can stay in the Church in Jerusalem to which he was heading (although his original destination was the Temple), or any other one of their Churches so that he can be under a “one-man central leadership” and make all their “meetings of the body”, and I highly doubt that he would make very many of their church meetings from all the way over there in Ethiopia.

The scripture in 1 Corinthians 7 is also one of the ICC’s favorite scriptures to use for this subject, they pay special attention to verse 17 where it says “This is the rule I lay down in all the Churches” while Paul is addressing the debate on circumcision that arose within the fellowship. The ICC jumps on this to say that since this was a decree given to all the Churches, then that must have meant that all the Churches have a central leadership under a central leader, as is stated in their “five core values”. The problem with this argument is that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul, and he clearly states that he is the one laying down this rule here. So if you have been following my article closely up to this point, who is the central leader now? Was it Peter? Was it James? Or was it Paul? So does the ICC mean to tell me that there were three central leaders now? In their desperate arguments for a single supreme leader the ICC has ended up making three different men into the “central leader”. So there are three “supreme leaders” now, doesn’t this contradict their arguments for one-man central leadership? The first century church had what seemed more along the lines of a “board of leaders”, if it could be called that, rather than a single central leader.

Another point to consider is what source of doctrine did the early Church have but from the apostles themselves? The Bible wasn’t written yet. Therefore the church heeded the advice of the Apostles; not because they had any supreme authority over them as with an all-powerful central leader for their organization, but out of necessity. It is apparent that the Apostles, wielded considerable influence not only because they had walked with Jesus but also because of the spiritual powers that were bestowed upon them (1 Corinthians 12:8-10), these Apostles had the powers of supernatural healing and even powers to raise the dead such as Peter raised Tabitha from the dead in Acts 9:40 and Paul raised Eutychus from the dead in Acts 20:12. If anyone were to witness someone being raised from the dead by people who proclaimed themselves to be prophets of God, I think anyone would consider it to be a wise choice to listen to the advice of these people. As a result they wielded considerable influence and used this influence appropriately. 

Do not underestimate the coordination and brotherhood of people who are one in heart and mind. They could pull off “special contributions” and share resources even without a supreme leader. They did indeed have a leadership in place, but nowhere do you find any emphasis for a supreme central leader. They would often take the advice of the Apostles out of respect, and then out of this respect they allowed the Apostles to lead them, and should the Apostles ever steer them wrong, they gave them their careful warning in Galatians 1:8. These Apostles would be rolling in their graves if they were to hear that people were being coerced into accepting deceptive policies for the sake of “unity”. This “central leadership” was not a mandatory issue.

I think a lesson can be learned from Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 4:6-7; Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.  For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

 He alludes to the saying “Do not go beyond what is written”. The ICC leaders have gone and imposed requirements on the congregation that are not in line with Biblical teachings, dressing these up as “convictions” and hammering them into the members. The members have been led to believe that these “convictions” of theirs make them into “strong disciples”; puffing them up and looking down on the ICOC as inferior.

Evidence of the structure of Church leadership from the early Christian writings

The Didache give instruction for financial support of leaders and gives evidence to some of the earliest church leadership structure:

Chapter 13. Support of Prophets. But every true prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment.

The Didache outlines procedures for supporting Christian “prophets” who were referred to as the “high priests” of the Christians in the regions where they dwelt. In other words; these were people of spiritual authority. The Bible outlines that many of the Churches had a structured leadership with titles such as bishops, deacons, etc. For Churches based in cities with a large population and large membership, such a leadership structure would have likely become necessary. The Didache, which was written in the mid to late first century, hints that not all starting Christian fellowships had such an organized leadership system; for some cases, instead of giving money or resources to a Church clergy they would instead give to the poor. This would have been understandable for Christians who lived in thinly-populated rural areas and were significantly spread out from each other as well as for Christian fellowships that were only getting started.  There was no mention that the money which was given needed to go through the hands of a “central leadership” or needed to be approved by such a system (since it refers to a prophet who “wants to live among you”, rather than being sent their by an ultimate superior) and in some cases there was no money required to be given to Church leaders at all since no such leader was present.

The writings by Irenaeus show how the Church organized itself when it became more structured and gives details behind the founding of the Church in Rome:

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. (Against Heresies III.3.3)

In other translations, the third paragraph is translated as:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

The translator makes two assertions (in parentheses) in paragraph 3 that the “Holy Apostles” was a reference to Peter and Paul and that the Church that was founded was referring to the Church in Rome specifically. This assertion comes from the context of the passage and can also be inferred from chapter 1, paragraph 1 of the same book written by Irenaeus which reads:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews(3) in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord,

who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies III.1.1)

Some scholars infer from this that after Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome, they left it in the care of Linus’s leadership after they departed to continue their evangelistic journey:

Peter and Paul seemed to be about their evangelistic work and not administrators so perhaps Linus was administrator of the Roman church before Peter and Paul died. –The New Testament Historical Enrichment by Jay Still.

Catholics consider Peter to be the first Bishop of Rome rather than Linus, even though it is unclear whether Peter actually assumed this title while he was doing his evangelical work there at its founding. Going back to chapter 3 of Against Heresies book III written by Irenaeus, he calls all Churches to be in agreement with the doctrine of the Church in Rome that was founded by Peter and Paul and then given to Linus, so that they may be unified. There was no indication that this unity meant that the Churches all around the world had to be controlled by one leader. Catholics consider Linus to be the second Pope after Peter since at the time of Peter’s death Linus was the Bishop of the Church in Rome which was the most influential church of that time. Irenaeus believes the identity of Linus to be the very same Linus that Paul mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21. The title of “Pope” was not actually being used at this time; it is believed that a title similar to this was used by Tertullian in the early part of the second century A.D. when he sarcastically applied the term Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff) to Callixtus I who was the head of the Catholic Church from 217-222. It was Heraclas, the thirteenth Bishop of Alexandria, who first assumed the title Papa (meaning “father” which became known as the English word “Pope” in the 10^th century) from 232 to 249 A.D., this title was applied to the bishops and other senior clergy. It wasn’t until the 11^th century that the title of Pope became reserved to be used by the Bishop of Rome, this is also the reason why the Catholic Church is compelled to argue that Peter was the actual first Bishop of Rome; in order to have him meet this definition and thus consider him to be the first Pope of the Catholic Church.

At first it seems almost pointless to me why they would want argue that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome rather than Linus just so that Peter could meet the criteria for an 11^th century definition, but then this begins to make sense when you consider their motives for doing so.  The Catholic Church wanted to portray their supreme leader, the Pope, as a divine position granted by God, and therefore wished to consolidate this position by coming up with a reasoning which would allow them to trace it all the way back to the Apostle Peter.  The words of the Pope would become the words of God to the people.  Even though there were contradictions to this reasoning, such as the fact that there were people added to their list of “Popes” after Linus who were not Bishops of Rome, the persuasion of the Catholic Church still proved very effective on the masses, because for any religion (even Christianity) what many people want above all is a visible connection between them and their god, whether this be a golden calf or a supreme leader. Is this not what Kip McKean is trying to become? Even in the wake of abuses, even in extraordinary displays of corruption (such as the incident with Karl W.), even when he demands heavy sacrifices from his disciples while he buys himself a $650,000 condo and stays at luxury hotels wherever he goes, despite all the contradictions, people still desperately follow Kip McKean as if he is their messiah.

Kip McKean’s “Point Man” Argument

On the issue of the unity of the early Church not being based on one-man central leadership, Kip seems to be trying to voice a counter argument to this in his letter “From Babylon onto Zion” where he wrote:

Many of us still over-idealize the unity among the New Testament leaders and churches, failing to see the problems and controversies that Satan desperately sowed trying to stop Jesus’ mission to evangelize the world.

-Page 40 in “From Babylon onto Zion” by Kip McKean

What does this statement even mean? First Kip tries to argue that one-man central leadership is biblical, then when it is shown that this does not quite add up with what the first century church actually did in the New Testament then does he try to suggest that their system was flawed? I could attempt to ask him what he meant about this statement, but since he has already contradicted himself so many times in both word and action, the only reliable tool left to me here is conjecture.

In an earlier section of Kip’s letter, he addresses a certain book titled “Golden Rule Leadership” which was written by Gordon Ferguson and Wyndham Shaw in 2001, the same year that Kip resigned as Lead Evangelist of the Los Angeles Church of Christ. Kip says that this book caused some “confusion”, which is just the ICC’s code word for any views that do not match the beliefs that they are trying to impose on their congregation. This book told of the dangers of a “one-man show” and instead focused more on what he calls a “team approach”. On page 18 of his letter, Kip writes:

Our brothers put before the kingdom a “team approach,” suggesting in the introduction that this would give us more growth in our churches. Later, others took this team approach to an extreme, which has now evolved into having no point person, no “quarterback,” no lead evangelist as a role on the leadership team with the elders.

He criticizes the leadership for not having a “point man” to lead them, however, it is all too obvious who Kip truly thought this point man position should belong to as can be seen in a letter^[1] written to Kip by the ICOC leadership on October 3, 2005:

Brother, we are glad you have acknowledged these sins, but we do not see change in you beyond mere surface changes to satisfy people for the moment. We would also add that you not only allow people to give you the glory, you encourage it and reward them for it as in the most recent Portland Jubilee.

You have said publicly that you repented of your arrogance. At the Portland Church Builder

Conference, shortly after you said you had repented of your arrogance and pride, you said, "I can fix any church." When you were recently asked privately if you were willing to be a team player with other brothers in cooperative leadership, your response was, "You don't understand. I am the star."

Your writing, your sermons and your website consistently contain unseemly, immature and unwholesome self-promotion and propaganda. It took multiple conversations from many of us before you ever commended any church but your own. You say publicly that you have repented of lifting yourself up, yet almost every bulletin article is about you and your ministry. Your entire view of our fellowship centers around who is with you and who is against you. This is unrighteous, unspiritual, immature and even irrational. –Addressed to Kip McKean by the ICOC churches. (Here is a link for the full letter to Kip)

Kip portrays himself as the solution to everyone’s problems; that he can “fix any church”. It is also clear that Kip thinks that he should be the one allowed to lead as he so put it in his own words that he is “the star” of the show and anyone who doesn’t share these views of his he considers to be “flawed” or “confused”.

Conclusion

There were two purposes to this article: 1.) To sort out the issue of central leadership and 2.) To show how it was being applied in conjunction with psychological influence.

If the early Church had stressed the idea of central leadership as much as Kip McKean and the ICC like to make a big deal out of it, if one-leader rule was an absolute requirement for Christianity as a whole, then wouldn’t the early Christian writings have reflected this? I gave only a few examples above (the Didache and the writings of Irenaeus were not the only historical documents I read on this); however, nowhere did I find any evidence that the early Christians considered a one-man leadership to be a requirement. If this was an issue of importance to them then they would have surely put some emphasis on it. Instead we see little to no concern toward this issue of a one-leader central leadership in the early Church writings or even in the writings of the Apostles themselves; there was no mention that the entirety of all early Christians and Church Clergy needed to report to the same central leader as if this was somehow a doctrinal or salvation requirement. Not to mention that when the Church was first formed in Jerusalem and spread outward this would have been a very unproductive form of governing themselves considering that it would have slowed down their evangelical advancement. The Apostles did not have a network of communication and coordination comparable to that of the Roman Emperor, and if all the Churches subservience to Peter’s command were to be a requirement for God’s plan of salvation then God would have given Peter the powers to do so. The powers that God gives to the apostles are listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10; wisdom, knowledge, faith, miracles, healing, distinguishing spirits, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation; as far as I can see there were no powers such as fast long-distance communication being given to Peter or the other Apostles that would have allowed them to accomplish such a feat as the disciples began to spread outward from Jerusalem. If central leadership was such a dire issue to the apostles then it would have been made clear in the scriptures exactly who the central leader was. Because of this lack of clarity, some scholars with catholic backgrounds debate whether James should be considered the first “Pope” instead of Peter because of the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 which I mentioned earlier.

This central leadership issue is simply Kip’s way of trying to compete with an organization that is too similar to his own.  The ICC attempts to hammer this belief into their members as if it was a matter of critical importance, even though this is not emphasized as a vital issue in either the Bible or the early church writings. In a way it actually is a matter of importance for Kip McKean financially since it serves to prevent the ICC’s abused members from going back over to the ICOC and was created to be anti-ICOC propaganda. Kip McKean is becoming more bold in making up such propaganda; his own arrogance is his undoing as it is clear here that his “one-man leadership” idea is an erroneous doctrine.

If the ICC wanted to have the opinion that they preferred central leadership over autonomy then fine, if they think that system works best for them. The reason the ICOC chose autonomy in the first place was because previously Kip McKean had grossly abused his power when he was lead evangelist of the ICOC central leadership and it was such a nightmare that they wanted to make sure that abuse of this level would not happen again (see my other article for this; How Kip McKean’s Old Movement Fell and What This Says About the Fate of the ICC). But for the ICC to try to pass off this opinion as a church doctrine without the evidence or scriptural confirmation to back it up, and then even twisting and exploiting whatever scriptures they think they can use to further their agenda, and then going even further as to make this into a salvation issue and using it to threaten members who want to leave due to being coerced into giving increasing amounts of money. Saying that the ICC has crossed the line here would be an understatement, and God will judge them for their deceitful actions.