|
Post by helpfulcommentary on May 11, 2006 0:24:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by speakword on May 11, 2006 9:57:08 GMT
Both ICOC and EN have roots in the Shepherding movement and Restorationism.
The ideas within Shepherding such as "covering" and "submission" are also historically entrenched in the EN movement as a whole. The degree of which this is taught or inherently practiced varies from church to church and even region to region. It seems from my research that the most abusive of leaders or churches subscribe solidly to the teachings that leaders of the Shepherding movement partially repented of years ago.
If you read any ICOC site or major ICOC document, as mentioned above, you will see that the phrases "discipleship" and "Great Commission" take up a whole lot of ICOC-speak. Unlike, EN, the ICOC is a second cousin of the New Apostolic Reformation. C. Peter Wagner, Broocks and Lafoon seem to suggest that EN is the leading son of the NAR.
"Discipleship" has been so abused and formulated into programmes and different church indoctrination schemes that the word has almost become something of an anathema to many. Some believe discipleship is nothing more than encouraging people to follow Jesus and that the process of resulting maturity and becoming more like him is best described as "spiritual formation".
During my university days in the early 90s, the ICOC was banned from our campus as a cult.
Over-shepherding has been something that people have being complaining about this movement for many years. From what I can see, many in the ICOC would have been glad to have been shot of Kip years ago. That is a whole different study and would require a working knowledge of their leadership structures etc.
Helpfulcommentary, I have not actually answered your question! I have an answer, but will wait for others to give theirs first.
|
|
|
Post by speakword on May 11, 2006 12:51:35 GMT
The International Churches of Christ's beef with Kip McKean seems to have be an historical one. In other words discipline seems to have been implemented over a period of time and through a certain due process. I have not researched the growth and internal governmental evolution of the ICOC and so drawing too close a comparison might be unfair.
My subjective observation of EN is that "proper" discipline of senior leaders only happens when things reach a crisis point. In the instance that I perhaps know most about, discipline was poorly executed and actually ultimately failed. (Like Kip it may have something to do with this leader's charisma and leadership talents as well as a hardened and arrogant attitude.)
That a leader subject to a local eldership, and in EN's case, an eldership of peers, can be bought to the point where public censure is required makes one suspect that perhaps not only the governmental structures required reform, but also attitudes and relational protocol as well.
Furthermore, I would like to argue that many of Every Nation's more senior leaders, including the more important members of the new regional boards, have all been part of EN and its precursor Maranatha for some time.
Whilst they may bring a wealth of experience they may also be harboring some of the dysfunctional attitudes and human management skills that Maranatha was so infamous for. Yes, perhaps they have all learned the bitter lessons of that experience, but I am yet to be convinced. I am not calling for a purge, but from what I can gather these men are not only influential in training church elderships within their particular realms, but also in appointing these elders.
Woven togther with complex ministry income streams this could easily become a system of patronage as in the RC church or the old Anglican Church where one's political allegiances were held paramount. There needs to be checks and balances. I am not saying that there was not already a patronage system both inherent and developing within EN.
I will comment further on this at another time, but my point is that I got the feeling during my membership years that some guys felt they need to "cover" for leaders who fall into serious sin or have harmful sin habits. It goes to the ideas people have about leadership and what has been historically taught in EN/MSI/HP/MCM about leadership.
Put leaders on a pedestal and soon you have idols. Idolatry of ministry seems to be a serious problem in certain areas of EN:Demanding to be called by one's title, reserving the best seats in the house, backslapping each other on the stage/pulpit and other insecure methods of profiling oneself and each other leads to this kind of worship as well as a culture in which to dare criticize or make comment would stigmatize one as disloyal, unchristian and as some have reported anti-Christian. Honoring spiritual leaders is vital, but allowing this to be misused is degrading to the integrity of the ministry as well as the various offices.
If a person could share their concerns with a leader without having not only their motives, but also their personal character, their line of submission and their discipleship level scrutinized then EN would be more healthy. Imagine being allowed to challenge the same points back to a senior leader. With a more congregational approach that shows no fear nor favor, perhaps the church could prevent these dyfunctionalities from manifesting in crisis.
A leader who is constantly hero worshiped, feted, held up as an example without any flaws (even in the context of a team approach) will soon become harder to criticize and correct privately, never-mind in public before the church which has had to happen in a few instances.
Why is it that 3 senior leaders of EN have had to be dismissed (one case quietly moved on and demoted)? I think we need to understand that as well.
Again, Helpfulcommentary do you think there is any leader now in EN who may need a public rebuke such as the ICOC ONE? Or has there ever been one at all?
|
|
|
Post by StationAdministration on May 11, 2006 13:44:44 GMT
I did review a novel in which I believe the author syncretised the poorest elements of the ICOC with the worst outcome of the NAR in which he speculates that the leadership styles of these streams could ultimately lead to Geo-political dictatorships under the guise of restorationist kingdoms. In the instance of the ICOC it came close to a ecclesiastical dictatorship and I believe it did so in His People, Cape Town as well.
|
|