I had been utterly mystified, for a while now, as to why most ICOC churches have retained essentially the same doctrines and practices. Many of you, like me, were very hopeful, after the HKL, that our churches would do some real soul-searching, repenting, and changing. When that proved to be a false hope, many of us chose to leave and find spiritual food elsewhere. But our original desire was to stay and see a church transformed. We asked, Why won’t you address the false teachings of the past and help construct a true church? We received no answers and only superficial changes.
Well, I have a theory. (Actually I proposed in another thread that many staff members would not make changes because about half the members would either call for their firing or leave, which would further endanger their already problematic careers…but this theory goes deeper.) Here goes:
From the inception of the proto-ICOC, AKA Crossroads, we were taught that we were different from all other churches, we were better. Why? Because our church was committed, while all others were dead. Back then we called it “Lordship,” later it became “discipleship.” We had it. Everyone else did not. This was our “gospel.” This is what we proclaimed, this is what we were to spread into all the world.
Every original “campus minister” sent out from Crossroads had this ideal firmly implanted in his mind. What should a true church look like? It should be totally committed. Later, Kip would firm up this idea in the Discipleship study, using Matt. 28 to teach that only disciples could be baptized and that the church should be composed of “only disciples.” (Now, in Portland, it’s “sold-out disciples.”) So, with this standard of what success would look like in our ministries, we went forth to create these totally committed churches. Not only did we, as ministers, have this goal in mind, we also indoctrinated every new member to the same view of what a true church must be.
This idea is what we were built on. Anything less than a totally committed church, with the accompanying activity (everyone recruiting, coming to everything, having discipling times, giving at least 10%, reading and praying every morning), was tantamount to personal failure in the ministry. Our members also believed this.
So, what happens with the HKL? The leadership of the ICOC recognizes that members won’t put up with overtly abusive behavior. But neither they nor most members want to give up the sacred cow of the totally committed church. To do so would be to lose the very reason they joined in the first place; they would be losing the only thing that made them, in their minds, better than every other church, the only thing that set them apart. To become less than that would be to become “just another denomination,” to use the phrase of many members and leaders. So, the trick is to change the abuses without losing the “total commitment.” The problem is, you cannot give up the fundamental flaws in ICOC theology without giving up the “totally committed church.” As many ICOC leaders have found, to their dismay, if you stop beating people over the head with guilt and fear, they will not be a totally committed church! Yes, many will do what pleases God, but many won’t, and even more, while really pleasing God, won’t live up to ICOC-created rules and programs.
Here’s the truth as I see it: The “totally committed church” ideal that is at the root of ICOC theology is a MYTH. Even Jesus did not have a totally committed church. The NT churches were not totally committed. There were then and will always be an invisible church, composed of those who possess faith, in the midst of the visible church, which also contains those who only profess faith. That is what most churches are like, and that is as it should be, until the return of Christ when all will be sorted out. The ICOC wants to have something that cannot legitimately exist in this age. It can only be created (although even this is an illusion) by false teaching and a works-based theology.
QED. This is why there have been no real changes in most ICOC churches.
What do you think?
Barry