Former member of the ICC here. I understand what you mean about not experiencing the bad things Every church is different and is run by different people. Same goes for the positives. i.e. members of the LA church experiences different things than the Chicago Church and vice versa. I was in it for a long time and made it high enough in leadership to have a perspective that the “regular member” would have. What made me leave was the fact that “stepping up” is an inevitability that is expected of every member. For all intents and purposes, it’s a startup church that needs its every member to “step up” in some capacity. Whether it’s serving as an usher, singer, mercy ambassador, kids kingdom, discipler, Bible talk leader, then going a little higher deacon of something, evangelist/WML etc. it’s a need that needs to be filled and somehow someway you will be “encouraged” to step into these roles and refusal to do so means “you have weak faith” or that “you need to trust God more”. A small example is leaders meetings after services. Its purpose is to have a meeting between the leaders but more often than not people are encouraged to come so that they could learn how to become one. It’s also easy to overlook the big picture when it comes to the abuse and stuff particularly when you don’t experience it. However the reasoning of “Oh that’s not happening in my section of the church” doesn’t negate the fact that it has happened and is happening elsewhere. I know in your church (as a whole), you condemn other churches like the Catholic Church as a whole for having priests molest children (just a more specific reason - there are other reasons of course like their doctrine). There may be a small percentage of that church that go through that but it is condemned as a whole. If you follow, what I’m saying is it’s difficult to justify the whole if parts of it is messed up. It is difficult to see especially from the inside the perspective of what it means to leave. Inside the church, people are told leaving means choosing sin and going to hell and having lukewarm faith. It’s a difficult choice to make and you may just read these as opinion but I’ll play. Here are scriptures to mull over. “I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! So because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to vomit you out of My mouth!” ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭3‬:‭15‬-‭16‬ ‭BSB‬‬ -you have to be fully committed or not at all for your faith’s sake. Your faith in God that is, not in the church. But obviously, in this church, faith in God and faith in the church is synonymous. Which in that line of thinking, if you doubt the church you’re already doubting God. I don’t agree. You made Jesus Lord not Kip not your leader not the person who baptized you. This is the faith that needs to be solid - faith in God. “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. For the patch will pull away from the garment, and a worse tear will result. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will spill, and the wineskins will be ruined. Instead, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭9‬:‭16‬-‭17‬ ‭BSB‬‬ -with knowledge of the bad things happening in the church as a whole, it compromises the idea that this is the only church or the one true church. As much as your little section of the wall is unharmed, it’s affected by the whole though sad as it may seem. “You were running so well. Who has obstructed you from obeying the truth? Such persuasion does not come from the One who calls you. A little leaven works through the whole batch of dough.” ‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭7‬-‭9‬ ‭BSB‬‬ -it is inevitable. The wrongs will eventually seep through the whole thing. The corruption that exists in the small section of the whole will eventually affect the whole itself. My advice is to dig deep in your faith - in God - and see what you need to do in order to protect said faith. It really boils down to that anyway. It’s you and God and everything else is secondary to that. I wish you the best regardless of your decision. I hope your faith can stand the test that is before you. And like anything, this too shall pass. Feel free to dm me if you have questions More on reddit.com

Hi there -- contact me (DM). I know a guy named Ini who was a former member of the London ICC. If you're curious about their history and theology: http://www.reveal.org/tracts/tract1.pdf If you're curious about the study sequence they are using, I'm working on that project here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yOTpWmd1RIodW_M6gQXFUX03hgBNNlpvST8Lg1k-wdU/edit?usp=sharing (it's a side-by-side comparison of the 1990's International Churches of Christ study sequence, the latest ICC and latest ICOC) I have a Master of Divinity from an accredited seminary (Gordon-Conwell, 2005). Yes, the ICC is going to try to convince their potential recruits: they aren't living the life of a disciple=Christian as narrowly cherrypicked by the ICC therefore, since they aren't disciples, they aren't saved any baptism outside of their church and with a view different than baptismal regeneration is invalid I have many documents that demonstrate the theological errors of the ICC and ICOC. Much of the problems are more in their legalistic practices. For instance, giving is monitored and also compelled, as in leadership and disciplers will try to talk with the members to give me and make sure they are giving (a total violation of 2Corinthians 9). They have compelled member spouses to divorce recalcitrant/obstinate non-member spouses to divorce. I actually have a small section in one of my documents about cults. The definition of “cult” in reference to the ICOC and ICC. Overview: Although the ICOC and ICC strictly denies that both are cults, using selective measurements and selective definitions and selective examples, each may qualify as the theological and secular cult. The definition of a theological cult is that it denies some crucial tenet of the Christian faith. One way to analyze this is to look at whether the group affirms or denies key tenets of the Nicene Creed (and even the Symbol of Chalcedon). Since the ICOC basically affirms the Nicene Creed, or at least intellectually affirms it, we find no fault here. However, in looking at historical doctrines of the church, and agreement (or disagreement) with such doctrines by the ICOC, and the practices in this church, there is much to be said. The ICOC implicitly affirms Pelagianism (cf. section 15), deprecating the traditional role of God in practice. The doctrines of providence and justification are entirely lacking within the ICOC. Theological cults also arise from two main factors: 1/ poor hermeneutics of two types, a1) new revelation (cf. the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints) which conflicts with old revelation (a violation of Galatians 1:8-9 “another Gospel” or “a different Gospel”) or a2) poor interpretation of Scriptures that conflict with other scriptures or biblical principles (the case being in the International Churches of Christ) 2/ people telling a person what to do with one’s life (i.e., speaking for God) – usually a charismatic leader or multiple leaders. (The evidence of people, namely leaders in the ICOC/ICC and disciplers, speaking for God, is abundant.) Heresies also have arisen where certain Christian dialectics (or even principles that are supposed to be held in tension with each other) are abandoned. For instance, an orthodox teaching is that Christ is fully-God, and fully-man. Heresies that taught that Christ was fully-God but only appeared to be human included Gnosticism (he only appeared to have died) and Docetism (that Christ’s humanity was an illusion). Heresies that taught that Christ was fully-human and not divine were Nestorianism/Adoptionism (that Christ became the Son of God through adoption by the Holy Spirit), Ebionism (similar), Arianism (that Christ was the first-born of creation but not divine). That key theological principles must be balanced with each other (otherwise, heresies will arise) will be a key idea in discussing the ICOC and ICC. The definition of a secular cult is that the group practices mind control or thought reform, that the group’s primary goals are either financial gain and/or recruitment, and the group may practice deception, and/or the group justify the means (which may be questionable) with the ends. Often cults are: 4) The group or church is dictatorial or authoritarian or totalitarian, even in seeming small matters, 5) The group or church is run by one charismatic person and/or an oligarchy with little diversity. I’ve discussed Thought Reform (or Mind Control) elsewhere as applied to the ICOC and ICC: http://www.reveal.org/library/psych/shassan.html http://www.reveal.org/library/psych/totalism.html http://www.reveal.org/library/psych/lifton.html Emmett Kellogg also has a video on youtube why he thinks the ICC is a cult (he is a former member who was in Los Angeles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XblH1BwcYc0 I am working with a guy who wants to expose the ICC: https://exploringicc.org/ Additionally I know these people: Karl's website: http://www.exicc.org/ Daniel's blog: https://thearticlesofindignation.blogspot.com/ Eddie's experience: http://www.reveal.org/library/stories/people/Agent_Zero.html More on reddit.com

Colleges & Universities really need to offer mandatory courses on Cults for all incoming Freshmen. More on reddit.com