|
Could it be that the International Churches of Christ (ICC) –
a group with lofty goals and tens of thousands of sincere, well-intentioned
members – is a cult? In this section, we synthesize the
material from previous sections and statistical data to answer
this question.
We will find that the ICC seems to dramatically fit to the
criteria of a destructive cult.
Contents
Intro
A Working Definition of a Cult
Is the International Churches of Christ authoritarian in its
power structure? Does the group have a pyramid-shaped structure
with absolute authority at the top?
Is the ICC totalitarian in its control of members’ behavior?
Does the ICC have a double set of ethics?
Does the ICC have self-appointed leaders, claiming to have a
special mission in life?
Does the ICC promote physical and/or psychological isolation
from society?
Does the ICC use deception in recruitment and/or fundraising?
Does the ICC use thought reform/mind control techniques?
Conclusion
Can ICC Cultic Abuse be Measured?
ICC Myths about Cults
Notes
A Working Definition of a Cult
To determine if the ICC or any group is a cult, we must start
with a fair and precise definition of what a “cult”
is. (Note: calling a group a “cult” is not a value
judgement about the group or the people in it. A psychological
model of a “cult” looks to the behaviors of the group,
not its beliefs or the sincerity of its members.)
One excellent definition of a destructive cult comes from
the support organization reFOCUS (see Figure 1). This definition
is broad enough to include all types of cults (religious, political,
therapy/self-improvement, business, etc), but narrow enough to
exclude non-abusive groups.
Figure 1: reFOCUS pamphlet’s definition a cult
A Cult:
...is authoritarian in power structure – has a pyramid-shaped
structure with absolute authority at the top
... is totalitarian in its control of the behavior of members
...tends to have a double set of ethics: one for the leader and
another for members; one for those inside the group and another
for dealing with outsiders
...has self-appointed leaders, claiming to have a special mission
in life
...promotes physical and/or psychological isolation from society;
has an “it’s us against the world” mentality
...uses deception in recruitment and/or fundraising
...uses thought reform techniques (1)
Source: reFOCUS pamphlet, Flagler Beach, FL, 1999.
We will compare these reFOCUS criteria one by one with the
ICC, using references to other RightCyberUp articles plus a study
by psychologist Michael Langone that surveyed former ICC members’
experiences.
Back to Contents
Is the International Churches of Christ authoritarian in its
power structure? Does the group have a pyramid-shaped structure
with absolute authority at the top?
We have seen much evidence of the ICC’s pyramid-shaped,
authoritarian power structure:
All ICC members are assigned a “discipleship partner”
to whom they report. Each “discipleship partner,” in
turn, has a discipler, and so on, all they way up to the top
leaders (see Mandatory, Assigned One-Over-One Discipling)
The ICC’s leadership structure forms a true pyramid, with
each level having fewer leaders who hold more power (see ICC
Leadership Structure)
ICC founder McKean has acknowledged that the ICC has a “vertical
authority” with a “hierarchy” and “lines
of authority” (see Mandatory, Assigned One-Over-One Discipling)
McKean seems to hold absolute authority from the top, with uncertain
checks and balances (see God’s Man)
Michael Langone’s study of former members’ experiences
seems to reveal authoritarianism in the ICC:
93% of former members said that members are told to trust
the group and its leaders over their own thoughts and opinions
88% said that members are told to subordinate themselves (will,
behavior, needs and desires) to the group’s leadership in
order to please God
88% said members are told that to question, criticize, disobey
or distrust leaders is to question, criticize, disobey or distrust
God
78% said members are admonished/rebuked for making a decision
without seeking advice from their disciplers, and 95% said that
not seeking/following advice meant having a bad attitude, bad
heart, etc. (2)
(figures rounded to nearest whole percent)
Back to Contents
Is the ICC totalitarian in its control of members’ behavior?
We have seen the ICC’s tendency toward domineering control
of members’ behavior:
control of dating relationships: supervision over whom members
can date or go steady with, discipling partners’ expectation
that members report details of dates, group-determined limitations
on physical contact on dates, the breaking off of relationships
by ICC leadership and pressure from the group to be dating in
the first place (see Control of Dating Relationships)
control of the marriage relationship, sometimes including spouses
reporting on one another (see Marriage)
expecting members to obey “advice” (see Advice is just
Advice?)
expecting members to confess all sins to make sure they are behaving
desirably (see Mandatory Confession)
control and monitoring of member financial donations (see Enforced
Tithing)
requiring attendance to several ICC events per week (see Mandatory
Attendance)
expecting members to subjugate any personal ambitions to the
needs and wants of the group (see Dying to Self?)
expecting members to turn down jobs when unfavorable to the group
(see Careers)
expecting members to make bringing in new group members their
primary focus (see Evangelism by Compulsion)
expecting members to change personality, hairstyle, dress, and
anything else that could make a person “unrelatable”
and less effective at bringing in other members (see Becoming
all things to all people)
Langone’s study gives further evidence of behavioral control
in the ICC:
100% of former members said members are encouraged to imitate
their disciplers – with 83% saying members are chastised
if they fail to imitate.
95% said members are told that they must confess their sins
to their disciplers
83% said members are told they should personally sacrifice
in order to give money to the group
50% of members were at least once strongly encouraged to date
or not to date a specific person
85% of former members said members are told they should sleep
less (3)
(figures rounded to nearest whole percent)
Back to Contents
Does the ICC have a double set of ethics?
The ICC fosters double standards between insiders (people inside
the group) and outsiders:
Whereas members are supposed to be “open” with one
another about everything, when recruiting outsiders there is
no such responsibility to be open. Instead, members are often
expected to conceal their true agenda from non-members to lead
them toward “the truth” (see Non-informed Consent)
deceit is defined differently for ICC teens than it is for ICC
adults interacting with “the world” (see A Definition
of Deceit and Lying and Church Plantings)
ICC members can use partial disclosure when recruiting, but parents
are criticized for doing the same thing when setting up an exit
counseling (see Double Standards and the Golden Rule)
the group has sued critics for allegedly misrepresenting the
ICC, yet it has misrepresented a major court case to members
(see Singapore Lawsuit)
the group complains it is treated unfairly by the media, yet
it misrepresents what the media has said about the ICC (see ICC
Attacks on the Media)
the ICC is allowed to change its doctrine over time (see Changing
Tunes articles), but the perceived false teachings of other religious
groups are viewed to automatically damn them
sincere religious individuals outside the organization are assumed
to be “sincere but sincerely wrong,” but the sincerity
of ICC members/leaders is usually seen to automatically justify
their actions (see Double Standards and the Golden Rule)
In other examples of ICC double standards, leaders often seem
governed by a different set of ethical standards than rank-and-file
members:
members’ progress, faults and weaknesses may be discussed
at leaders-only meetings, but when members speak critically about
leaders it is considered “gossip,” “slander”
or “divisiveness” (see Double Standards and the Golden
Rule)
members can’t read the most negative material but leaders
can (see Inoculation Against Criticism)
members can’t speak to marked people, but leaders can (see
Marking)
members are expected to be more open about their personal finances
than is the group (see “Our books are open”)
members are expected to sacrifice financially, while some collect
large salaries incur significant travel expenses or live in expensive
homes – using the same money sacrificially contributed by
members (see ICC Finances articles)
all ICC members are expected to report to a discipler who is
“over them in the Lord,” except Kip McKean (see God’s
Man)
Back to Contents
Does the ICC have self-appointed leaders, claiming to have
a special mission in life?
ICC founder Kip McKean has proclaimed himself to be “God’s
man,” executing God’s plan in today’s world (see
God’s Man)
McKean says that God has put a plan on his heart to evangelize
the world in one generation (see God’s Man)
McKean is self appointed: although he was initially invited in
1979 to be the evangelist at a small Massachusetts church, McKean
was never elected as leader of the movement. Rather, he consolidated
power, claiming to be God’s elect (see Thirty would-be disciples
in Boston)
McKean has chosen the World Sector Leaders who serve beneath
him; the World Sector Leaders have not appointed McKean (see
God’s Man)
McKean’s senior leaders – appointed to their positions
by McKean – endorse the idea that God works through McKean
to lead “God’s movement” (see God’s Man)
McKean claims to be “restoring” the New Testament church
and New Testament doctrine (see God’s Man) – even though
many of his doctrines and practices cannot be found nor reasonably
inferred from the Bible
the proclaimed mission of McKean and the World Sector Leaders
is to complete the Great Commission of Jesus Christ in a single
generation (see The Great Quota)
Langone’s former-member research also shows that the ICC
and its leaders teach that they play a special role in humankind:
98% said members are told that this movement is the Kingdom
of God.
70% said members are told the group’s leaders are special
messengers of God – that they are blessed by God
85% said members are told the movement’s leaders are
more godly than rank-and-file members (4)
(figures rounded to nearest whole percent)
Back to Contents
Does the ICC promote physical and/or psychological isolation
from society?
We have seen many ICC teachings and practices that contribute
to the psychological isolation of members:
teaching that all other groups have false teachings (see Denominationalism
and False Doctrines)
teaching that people outside the group are going to hell (see
People Saved Outside the ICC)
teaching prospective members a series of studies that systematically
removes their options and alternatives until the only acceptable
choice remaining is to become a member of the group (see Manipulated
Commitment)
asking members to make their closest friendships inside the group
rather than outside it (see Influence and Use of Friendship)
ingraining black-and-white thinking in members: everything outside
the group is bad – the group alone is good (see Partiality)
teaching that the solutions to problems like chemical addiction
exist only within the group, and not giving people tools to conquer
their addictions outside the group (see Chemical Recovery)
teaching that leaving the group is leaving God (see Leaving the
ICC is Leaving God?)
teaching that people who leave will inevitably be worse off than
before they joined the group (see Who’s the Dog?)
teaching that bad things will happen to people who leave the
group (see Is God Preoccupied with the ICC?)
calling any outside criticism of the group persecution (see Is
Criticism = Persecution?)
warning members Satan wants to use their families against them
(see Families)
“marking” some of the people who are the most critical
of the movement (see Marking)
Langone’s study finds additional evidence of psychological
or physical isolation of ICC members from the rest of society:
95% said that people outside the group are regarded as “worldly”
or “influenced by Satan” or “enemies of God”
90% said members are told that there are no other Christian
churches outside the movement where salvation can be found
73% said members are strongly encouraged to move out of old
living situations in order to live with members
73% said members are told that going home to visit family
or spending time with friends outside the group could cause Satan
to get a foothold, and 88% said that spending time with them
outside recruiting efforts is not “seeking the Kingdom first”
55% said members are told that they shouldn’t read or
watch media coverage of the group
80% said members are told they shouldn’t speak with former
members (5)
(figures rounded to nearest whole percent)
Back to Contents
Does the ICC use deception in recruitment and/or fundraising?
We have found many examples of apparent deception in the organization:
friendship or the appearance of friendship is used to gain
others’ involvement in the group (see Influence and Use
of Friendship)
leaders may encourage (or tolerate) the use of hidden agendas
in invitations to group events (see Non-informed Consent)
Bible Talks may have hidden agendas unknown to visitors (see
Orchestrated Bible Talks)
leaders claim the ICC is non-denominational, when really it fits
any publicly accepted definition of a denomination (see We’re
a non-denominational church)
the group’s more controversial doctrine/practices are revealed
through incremental disclosure – recruits are told only
what they are “ready to know” at a given time (see
Incremental Disclosure)
recruits are asked during the initial studies to make small commitments
to the group or its doctrines without being aware of the consequences
of those commitments (see Manipulated Commitment)
members are asked to join the organization without knowing what’s
in the “fine print” (see ICC Hidden Costs)
telling members they are free to leave, but when they actually
try, then telling them they’re leaving God (see Free to
Leave?)
declaring that the group’s financial books are open, yet
not fully answering questions about finances (see “Our books
are open”)
representing members’ typical financial sacrifice as 10%
of income when in reality it may be much more (see Weekly Contribution
and the 10% Myth)
lies may be used when necessary to plant foreign churches (see
Lying and Church Plantings)
claiming that HOPE, the ICC’s charitable arm, is a separate
organization, when in fact HOPE’s management and goals are
intertwined with the ICC’s (see Does the ICC Use HOPE as
a Front Group?)
collecting HOPE funds from corporations and other non-ICC donors,
but spending money on initiatives that indirectly benefit the
ICC (see HOPE Fundraising)
using HOPE as a front organization to aid in recruiting members
(see Does the ICC Use HOPE as a Front Group?)
allowing public figures to be deceived by not revealing HOPE’s
connection to the ICC (see H.O.P.E.: Helping Our Publicity Efforts)
claiming to be the “largest church” in several cities
by counting its members differently than other groups –
and counting members who live outside the metropolitan areas
of these cities (see One Church, One City)
promoting a myth that deprogramming and exit counseling are the
same thing (see Exit Counseling = Deprogramming)
propagating fallacies about the group, its past, and the criticisms
of the group (see ICC Fallacies articles)
Langone’s study asked former members about their recruitment
into the movement. Answers showed a strong disparity between
what people were originally told as recruits, and what they later
came to believe was true about the group:
70% were not told that the purpose of the individual Bible
Studies was to get them baptized into the movement. Later, 90%
of former members said this was the purpose of the Bible Studies.
53% of former members said they were not told that the Bible
Talk to which they were invited was for the purpose of bringing
new people into the movement. Later, 90% of former members believed
this was the purpose of Bible Talks.
68% of former members said they were not told prior to consenting
to do the individual Bible Studies that they would be required
to have a discipler if they joined. Later, 100% of former members
believed that disciplers were required.
70% of former members said they did not know that they had
been openly discussed in leaders meetings and that people were
assigned to be their friends and encourage them to become a member.
Later, 95% of former members felt this was true.
88% were told the group was nondenominational
45% were not told that the local group to which they were
invited was part of the Boston/ICC movement
(figures rounded to nearest whole percent)
Back to Contents
Does the ICC use thought reform/mind control techniques?
ICC practices and characteristics dramatically fit the BITE model
of mind control (see Thought Reform/Mind Control in the ICC articles).
researchers have found measurable evidence of personality change
and psychological damage in the ICC (see Evidence from ICC-related
Psychological Studies).
Back to Contents
Conclusion
By comparing the seven reFOCUS criteria to the International
Churches of Christ, we see that the ICC can be classified as
a destructive cult. Figure 2 summarizes the ICC vs. the reFOCUS
criteria.
Figure 2: Summarizing the ICC vs. Destructive Cult Criteria
Destructive Cult Characteristic* ICC
Authoritarian Power Structure, Pyramid-Shaped Yes
Totalitarian in Control of Behavior Yes
Double Set of Ethics Yes
Self-Appointed Leaders Claiming Special Mission Yes
Promotes Physical and/or Psychological Isolation Yes
Deception in Recruitment and/or Fundraising Yes
Uses Thought Reform/Mind Control Techniques Yes
*Source: reFOCUS pamphlet, Flagler Beach, FL, 1999.
Back to Contents
Can ICC Cultic Abuse be Measured?
A more scientific method for identifying cults has been to use
empirical measurement as a “measuring stick” for cultic
abuse. Interestingly, one of the first groups studied in this
way is the ICC.
Chambers, Langone, Dole & Grice created the Group Psychological
Abuse (GPA) scale by asking former members of groups considered
to be cults to rate characteristics of their groups. The researchers
then used a technique called “factor analysis” to classify
28 components of group psychological abuse into four major areas:
Compliance, Exploitation, Mind Control and Anxious Dependency.
They came up with the following definition of a “cult”:
Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically
and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's
demands through certain types of psychological manipulation,
popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of
deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders.
(6) [emphasis added]
Langone later gave the Group Psychological Abuse questionnaire
to former Boston Church of Christ members, and to comparison
groups of former Roman Catholics and former InterVarsity Christian
Fellowship members. He found that “former Boston movement
subjects rated their group significantly more abusive than did
former Catholics or InterVarsity graduates.” (7) The Catholic
and InterVarsity former members rated their groups on average
as being substantially below the 84 GPA score that separates
“abusive” from “non-abusive” ratings, while
the two BCC groups gave average ratings of 105 and 108 (see Figure
3). According to the Group Psychological Abuse scale, the Boston
Church of Christ was an abusive group, but InterVarsity and the
Roman Catholic Church were not.
Figure 3: ICC vs. the Group Psychological Abuse (GPA) scale
In this study, the Boston Church of Christ also scored higher
than the non-ICC groups on each of the four abuse sub-scales:
Compliance, Exploitation, Mind Control and Anxious Dependency,
showing that the BCC fit the researchers' empirically developed
definition of a “cult.”
Back to Contents
ICC Myths about Cults
[Note: the ICC movement has been called a cult since its early
history, but has always resisted the label. To see an examination
of some ICC counter-arguments about being a cult, click here.]
Notes:
(1) reFOCUS pamphlet, Flagler Beach, FL, 1999.
(2) Michael Langone, An Investigation of a Reputedly Psychologically
Abusive Group That Targets College Students, A Report to Boston
University’s Danielsen Institute, April 26, 1996.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) William Chambers, Michael Langone, Arthur Dole & James
Grice, The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A Measure of the
Varieties of Cultic Abuse, Cultic Studies Journal, 11(1), 1994.
(7) Langone, An Investigation…
Copyright © 2001 Dave Anderson. All rights reserved. |