It will be released on the free side of DToday at some point, but the editors have released a statement about Kip and the formation of the International Christian Churches.

If you have a membership, you should go read it. This is the most explicit statement to date. In it, the conclusion is very clear, the new ICC is a about following a man named Kip McKean. I appreciate this very detailed and thought-out response. It took a lot to write it as many of the authors were close, personal friends with Kip.

However, to claim that this present situation is not like the split with the CoC’s in the 1980s is pathological denial. The explanation given is that the split in the 80s came about because of

significant differences of conviction between the typical traditional Churches of Christ and the Boston Movement including the biblical expectation that every disciple be committed to God, the church, discipleship and evangelism. While the separation process was not always a godly one on either side, the need for a new movement was well established by the differences of convictions.

It can be argued that there are significant differences of conviction between the typical ICoC and the Portland Movement including the biblical expectation that every disciple be ‘sold-out’ for God, committed to God’s Kingdom on earth, discipling one another and evangelizing the world in one generation. If the Boston Movement can be allowed to separate because of two different levels of conviction, so can the Portland Movement. Boston was about following Kip, too, otherwise so many people would not have moved to Boston to be trained by Kip in the 80s. Now, they are all moving to Portland to be trained or even retrained.

Let’s back up here. Kip is saying the same things as he did in the 80s. He is doing the same things as he did in the 80s.

What changed that made forming this new church divisive and egotistical as opposed to forming a new church in the 80s?