Questions about the Boston Church of Christ are one of the most commonly asked in this group. Since each discussion we've had in the past has taken a month or so, I have prepared the FAQ to summarize the issue. It normally send it out rather than posting questions. This FAQ takes the form of a critique interspersed with a response. The whole original critique is included, so you should see both sides. One of our readers has asked me to make the following comment on the FAQ: This FAQ is of very uneven quality. Not only is some of the information critical of the movement out of date, but some of the information in defense of it may be sufficiently unclear as to be close to misinformation. A long-time member of the movement has volunteered to deal with questions. So you might want to contact her in addition to reading this. She is Sharon Belville belville@mit.edu From: WOODRUFF@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu Subject: RE: San Francisco Church of Christ Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu >I was planning on posting on the Boston Movement in the Church of Christ >soon but this seems like a good opportunity so I'll do it now. The San >Francisco CoC is indeed part of the Boston movement. I have studied the >group pretty intensively lately and this is a thumbnail sketch of my >current understanding of their history, doctrine, and practices. >Official information is hard to come by because the group is somewhat >decentralized. The following is a compilation of information given by >people both in and out of the movement, and various publications of both >the Boston church, its affiliates, and its detractors. It should also >be noted that the best evidence I have been able to glean seems to >indicate that the movement is in the process of splitting or perhaps >even shattering. There do seem to be some marked differences between >the churches in various cities. Even with the best of intentions, such a technique will guarantee false results for the same reason that allowing hearsay in court will guarantee false convictions. If you're looking for information, go to the source. Look on the back of BCC's latest bulletin and call Kip McKean or one of the Elders of the Church. Their home numbers are always printed there. You can also contact the editor of Discipleship magazine. They have published histories of the church and comparison studies of doctrine a couple of different times (the last issue had a very high level one on the history of the churches since the first century). If you're interested, I'll mail you the address (snail mail--they aren't on the net). > > Brief History > >The Boston movement is a very controversial branch of the Church of >Christ. The Church of Christ is a denomination (although they wouldn't >like that term) which dates back to the 1800's and grew out of the work >of Stone and Campbell on what was then the frontier. Both men came from >a Presbyterian background but grew dissatisfied with that and started >movements of their own. These two separate groups later merged briefly >but then split again. One became what is today called the Disciples of >Christ and the other became the "churches of Christ". There are a number of good books on the restorationist movement, and some directories of all the different Churches of Christ and their histories. Look in any Christian book store. >What is now known >as the Boston movement was started in Gainesville, Florida in the early >1970's by a man named Chuck Lucas with the Crossroads Church of Christ. >Although I haven't found the exact link with the sheperding movement >which also started in Florida during that time it seems highly probable >that Crossroads movement was heavily influenced by them. >The roots of >the sheperding/discipling movement have been traced to a combination of >the practice of spiritual direction in the RC church, the pietists in >the Wesleyan movement, Watchman Nee, certain parachurch organizations >(notably Navigators and Campus Crusade), and developments in the >charismatic movement. None of these groups (with possible excepton of >the RC spiritual directors and of course that part of the charismatic >movement which went on to become the discipling movement) practiced the >full blown discipling methods of the shepherding movement. They did all >provide influences which eventually coalesced into that method. Actually, the roots of discipling came when someone observed: 1) Jesus was always with his disciples, teaching them, and correcting them in "real time" in "real life". 2) Jesus commanded his disciples to do the same in Matthew 28 That's all. >For >reasons which I can't document the Crossroads church and Chuck Lucas >dropped out of the movement in the late 80's and the Boston church led >by Kip McKean became the leading church in the movement. Again, there are a lot of mainstream books on this. Basically, Kip dropped out in '79 because personality cults were developing where individuals considered themselves above the Bible and would not stand for correction by their peers. Since there were several personalities whose pride overwhelmed them, the result was a series of factions within the Gainesville church until it was essentially destroyed. > > Doctrine > >The Church of Christ believes in the autonomy of each local congregation >so it is impossible to talk of "official" doctrine; however, there are a >few themes which are common to almost all of the churches. I know of >three major groupings in the Church of Christ: the "instrumental" >churches of Christ, the "non-instrumental" churches of Christ, and the >Boston/Crossroads movement. > >Two years ago I would have thought the term "instrumental" church of >Christ was an oxymoron. I am told, however, that there are some >churches of Christ in the north that are indeed instrumental and also >differ on some other matters of doctrine. I am not very familiar with >them and will let some one better qualified than myself summarize their >doctrine. > >The "non-instrumental" churches are very prevalent in Texas. For >example, there are 3 columns of them in the Dallas yellow pages. The >Boston movement grew out of this branch of the churches of Christ. >Doctrinally the two groups are very similar. The Boston group differs >more in the area of practice than doctrine. You can't really say that that BCC grew out of churches in Texas since there was never an influence (I doubt if anyone in Boston was aware in any real since of the churches in Texas until Boston tried to plant a church there). Texas churches almost form their own denomination. You can say the BCC came from the American Restorationist school which tried to restore a) the Bible as the Word of God and b) the Bible as a model to be lived by. (Although sounding similar, they are radically different from the Fundamentalist/Evangelical movement.) As for the instrumentation, the whole argument boils down to this: Instruments are never mentioned as being used in worship in the New Testament. Should we use them? Some say yes, since they aren't excluded. Some say no. We say "we don't know, but we don't use them and no one seems to mind." God either doesn't want them to be used, or doesn't care so we appear not to be displeasing him. That churches have been split on this speaks volumes on human pride. >Baptism > >Both groups believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. They do >not view baptism as a "work" and so do not see this as contradicting >biblical statements about the sufficiency of faith for salvation. The >language often used is that baptism is not a "ground" for salvation but >is a "condition" for it. Baptism is your participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is how you die to your old sinful nature and are born again to live a new life. >The Boston group goes further and believes >that one must have "a disciple's heart" in order for a baptism to be >valid. There have apparently been a large number of rebaptisms in the >past 2-5 years as a result of this as many members from other CoC have >doubted there purity at the time of their original baptism. One leader >was quoted as saying "People in the churches of Christ who have not been >discipled first and then baptized are not saved..." and goes on to say >"the vast majority of people in the church of Christ are not saved". If >your heart was not pure enough then baptism is not valid in their view. Matthew 18 teaches us to make disciples and baptize them. Basically this means someone has to make a real commitment to follow Jesus completely for the rest of his or her life before he or she can be baptized. Very few people in traditional churches make that commitment. (Luke 14 has a good passage about that commitment.) >This infuriates members of the "mainline" CoC. One last note: I believe >both mainline and Boston churches baptize in the name of Jesus only. You may believe that. It isn't true. In Boston, Orlando, Jacksonville, Miami, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad, or Barbados everyone has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Ghost). >Non-instrumental worship > >CoC doctrine prohibits the use of instruments in worship. All singing >is done a capella. The reasoning behind this is convoluted and >incoherent so I won't try to reproduce it here. One Boston member has >told me that this is not true of Boston churches but I have yet to see >an instrument used in worship services at the Boston movement church in >Dallas. See above. Instruments are widely used in worship, but not in the worship SERVICE for the reason given above. >Name of a church > >CoC spurn the designation "denomination" based on their reading of 1 Cor >1:10-17. The only name which is valid for a Christian group is "church >of Christ". The Boston churches are almost always of the form "city> Church of Christ". This has been traced to the influence of >Watchman Nee and his belief that there should only be one church in a >given city. The only exception I know of to this naming convention is >the Dallas/Fort Wort Church of Christ Jesus which was renamed to >distinguish it from the other churches of Christ in the area. This >would seem to violate their reading of 1 Cor 1:10-17 but they did it >anyway. Denomination = in the name of Lutheranism is in the name of Martin Luther. Weslyanism is in the name of John Wesley. etc. Since the assumption is that a Christian church is in the name of Christ, the Churches of Christ are not considered a denomination. As for why there is usually one church per city, the reason is simple: that's the way it was always done in the New Testament (Church at Ephesus, Corinth, Thessolonica, etc.). *********************************************************************** ** IMPORTANT POINT TO UNDERSTAND: ** ** The source of what the BCC does is nearly always from following ** ** the New Testament model. Splitting churches in zones is a not, ** ** but it is not contrary to anything in the new testament. ** *********************************************************************** The Church ALWAYS follows this pattern. If they do something, look for a scriptural reason for it first (99.99% of the time) then look to mind of one of the church members. (Conceivably the churches could have been called "Church of God" since that's also used in the New Testament. But there are already enough Churches of God (there are two on one street in Orlando)). >Works, Salvation, and Discipleship > >Both groups believe in the necessity of obedience for salvation; >however, for the Boston group this entails much more than for the >mainline churches. In the Boston group obedience to God means obedience >to your discipler. More on this later when I discuss practices. > >Autonomy > >Individual congregations are independent of each other. The Boston >movement is accused by mainline churches of violating this principle >since the leaders of each church have a their discipler someone in >another church "higher up" in the hierarchy. The "mainline" CoC sees >this as a "papacy". Let's see, who disciples Kip? I think it's someone much lower in your church hierarchy as I recall. I think the Orlando evangelist disciples the Miami evangelist who disciples the Sector leader of the Americas. The hierarchy: Sector Leader + Zone Leader | | Evangelist <----------+ Sector Leader Zone Leader Bible Talk Leader Positions above Evangelist rotate around constantly (Kip was Evangelist in the Boston Church; now he's the sector leader of CAFE (Caribean, Africa, Far-East, Europe)). In essence: there is no pope. You get discipled by whoever is available who helps you get closer to Christ. (This is also scriptural. Look at the leaders in Jerusalem--the most spiritual advanced church--discipling the younger churches. Then look at Peter, the "Pope", getting rebuked by Paul, or isn't even an Evangelist for a Church!) > >Other Christian groups > >Many CoC people are fond of saying they are "Christians only but not the >only Christians"; however, there are some CoCs which believe there are >few or no Christians outside the CoC. Boston movement people seem to >usually fall in the latter category. The leader of the Boston church in >Dallas has been reported as saying he only knows of a very few true >Christians (or disciples as they are fond of calling Christians) outside >the Boston movement. Yep. >Tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit > >These are basically seen as limited to the time of Acts. Some CoC folk >can be quite vociferous on this point and would almost lead you to >believe that it is one of the worst heresies you could believe in. Judging by how he reacted, my roommate thought the worst sin in the world was letting a sister he liked into our bedroom to leave a card on his desk when the room was a mess. But he didn't really think that; only acted like it for a bit. > Practices > >The chief problems reported about the Boston movement are usually >related to abuses of the discipling methods they use. In the Boston >movement everyone has an individual discipler who exercises a great deal >of authority over his charges. Since he is an individual the usual >safeguards that result from having a group of leaders are disabled. There may be a church someone that still uses individual disciplers. The churches I'm familiar with don't. The problem with individual disciplers, I've been told, are twofold: 1) they're not really scriptural, 2) they can be very destructive if misused. I'm not sure when you're quoting from, but I've heard there were some serious abuses in the early 80's, enough to cause a massive church-wide repentance (one of many--the last was over caring for the poor when the Evangelist from London came over and tore Orlando apart for what it was not doing to help the poor). In Orlando, we now use a group form of discipleship called "PiG Groups" (Partners in the Gospel) or "D-Groups" (Discipleship Groups). We have one leader, who has more of a coordinator role most of the time, and 5 to 15 other disciples. We meet once a week and share where we're at, what we're struggling with, and try to help each other overcome it. It reminds me a lot of support-groups, except that it is Biblically based. >One Boston leader has been quoted as "If your House Church leader came >in and said, `I want everybody here to wear a red shirt,' then everybody >has to wear a red shirt." Even the personality of the discipler is to be >imitated. Flavil Yeakley did a study using the Meyers Briggs Type >Indicator which indicated that the personalities of members gravitated >towards a particular personality type (ESFJ for those who are >interested). That's interesting; I'll try to do the same down here and let you know what the results are if you're interested. I'm INTP, BTW. As for imitating personalities, we had a discussion about it. My discipler pointed out that very little is mentioned of Jesus' personality, so it isn't very important. QED: Be yourself, but act like Jesus. >There have also been accusations of disciplers approving >who one may date or how often. I am personally acquainted with one >situation where a person was told he *must* date. There are also claims >that the discipler will order 40 day fasts, who one must marry, midnight >Bible studies, confession of sins, a strict daily schedule, more >evangelism (one can never measure up in this area), prohibitions to move >to a city without a Boston church in it, and other things too numerous >to mention. I am personally aware of a few instances of these such as a >one day fast (not 40), a few midnight BS, someone instructed not to >move, and the confession of sins. The failure to evangelize (translated >wins converts) receives such condemnation that it almost needs a >category by itself. The failure to produce "fruit" is seen as proof >that one's conversion is counterfeit. Let's see, I know: a) Disciples were rebuked for not dating when their reasons were selfish. b) Near-disciple went on a near-40 day fast when a disciple suggested fasting to get his heart right but forgot to tell him he could stop when his heart was right! c) One must marry another Christian. Never heard of any other restrictions. d) Been in several midnight Bible Studies when someone started studying the Bible and didn't want to stop. We studied until we dropped, slept, then continued until the person was baptized. e) God calls us to confess our sins. f) I was on a strict daily schedule for a while because I wasn't getting what I needed to get done. That's when I started using my Day-Timer a little better. I also was corrected for putting my schedule before God and others. g) I'm glad Peter and Paul weren't like you. They lived to evangelize the world, as we do. h) Anyone can move anywhere they want, just as you can chop off your hand and fling it far from your body if you want to. Neither is advised. >These abuses are periodically recognized by the leaders and statements >are made about correcting them. However, it seems unlikely that any >real progress will be made until the single-individual-has-authority >model is modified. I don't know when the individual discipling stopped. We've grown from 30 to 40,000+ in 12 years, so evidently some progress was made. > Evaluation > >The strong points of the Boston movement are enthusiasm and boldness in >presenting their message. These people are really excited about God and >miss very few opportunities to tell people about it. > >Clearly, some of the doctrines of both the "mainline" CoC and the Boston >movement are unbiblical and need to be rejected. The emphasis on >baptism and other acts of "obedience" as required for salvation is >contrary to the clear presentation of grace in Scripture. In comparing >the two groups it does seem that the Boston movement has moved another >standard deviation beyond the already questionable stance of the >"mainline" CoC in this regard. For fun, go back to a Bible commentary of the late 1800s and look at their comments on Baptism. Every so often someone reads the Bible again and decides to start following it. The result is always the same. EVERYTHING the church does comes from scripture, is not opposed to scripture, or gets corrected if in error. Remember that the Church in Corinth was a Church of Christ even though they had serious problems (1 Corinthians). They repented, corrected their mistakes, and went on serving God for some time. >The discipling method has repeatedly proved itself dangerous from the >early days of its use by RC spiritual directors down to the charismatic >sheperding movement. (It should be noted that modern RC "spiritual >direction" has many safeguards that the original practice did not so it >should not be compared to the discipling movements of today.) If you are >considering joining this group I would recommend against it for these >reasons. > >The Boston movement has seen a great deal of change over the past 5-8 >years. It is difficult to tell where it will end up. I noted in >Christianity Today recently that the last(?) of the Fort Lauderdale >"sheperding" leaders apologized recently for the harm caused by the >discipling movement. The original charismatic "sheperding" movement has >pretty much disbanded and now only lives on in its CoC incarnation. >This at least should give some hope that the evolution of the Boston >group will follow a similar pattern. The Boston movement could have >much to offer if its enthuasiasm was harnessed for real evangelism (that >is the good news of grace) in stead of the current dysangelism of works >they currently advocate. > >I know that a couple of Boston movement people read s.r.c. Hopefully >they will be able to fill in gaps I have left and make corrections for >us. While I'm not a Church historian, and have only been a disciple for a year, I hope my comments are helpful. If you want to attack Boston for doctrinal reasons because you believe "Once Saved, Always Saved" feel free. But strive to present an accurate picture for fairness' sake. mark Boy, this baby's long! From: Noel Estabrook To: christian@dumas.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: CONFUSED ABOUT CHURCH clh has already sent you a FAQ as he said. Just a personal note though. I have done a bit of research on the BCC (in fact, my brother was involved there for a while before he broke away). Many former members of the BCC have described it as a cult. All indicators seem to point that way. They believe you are only saved through Baptism, not personal belief in Jesus Christ (since this IS a salvation issue, I see it as pretty major). They don't allow instruments into their worship services (not a salvation issue, but it still contradicts Scripture) They have a tendency to basically ignore the Old Testament. They will slowly try to take control over every aspect of your life, especially the financial. Your "discipler" is the one most often is the one who keeps track of your money. Once you are in the church, their concern seems not to be whether you are winning others to Christ or not, but rather whether or not you are bringing people into _their_ church. When my brother first joined there, I wrote him a letter explaining my concerns. His small group leader actually read the letter and told my brother that he'd better not listen to my advice anymore. This was a huge red flag to me. Hope this helps. Noel noel@crs.cl.msu.edu ------------------------- Postscript from the moderator: There seems to be no disagreement that there have been problems with discipling in some churches at some times. The question on which it is hard to get clear answers is whether the problems are all in the past or not. I've seen postings from people with recent experience in the church saying that abuses are continuing, and in some of the churches may even be getting worse. This includes both postings from former members, which are always somewhat suspect, and a posting from a current member who was feeling rather confused. But we had a posting from a member of one of the churches saying that no discipling is being done at all. About all I can say is that the postings above should give you an idea of why their approach is controversial, and should show you want to be looking for. Whether any particular church shows these problems at any particular moment is something we're probably not going to get agreement on. From wilbanks@spot.colorado.edu Mon Nov 16 01:27:13 1992 Received: from spot.Colorado.EDU by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA19133; Mon, 16 Nov 92 01:27:12 EST Received: from localhost by spot.Colorado.EDU with SMTP id AA07880 (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.4/CNS-2.1 for hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu); Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:27:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199211160627.AA07880@spot.Colorado.EDU> To: Charles Hedrick Cc: wilbanks@spot.colorado.edu (Micah Malachi), wilbanks@spot.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Denver Church of Christ In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 15 Nov 92 22:22:16 GMT." Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 23:27:05 -0700 From: "Dylan, or Wendell, or Malachi, Or who knows?" X-Mts: smtp Status: R thank you for the FAQ. I appreciate it immensely. the said abuses in the FAQ continue as I see it, esp. here in Boulder. I've seen many examples of discipling here, especially in the dorm I live in. Since 1990, they have made a conscientious effort to inhabit and recruit from my dorm specifically, which has made both secular and Christian communities unhappy. We're trying to come up with a way in which we can co-exist with them without them using some very un-Christian tactics in recruiting. So far, we're mainly gathering info and possible strategies in dealing with them. Right now, anything can happen. We hope a more Christian faction comes to power and we can combine forces to win back the campus for Jesus. But right now that's all in God's hands.... Thanks again. Dylan . From @cbfsb.att.com:news@cb.att.com Wed Nov 18 16:58:49 1992 Received: from att-out.att.com by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA03875; Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:58:49 EST To: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Received: by cbfsb.cb.att.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA27040; Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:50:58 EST Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: cbnewsg.cb.att.com!mdw From: mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) Subject: Re: Denver Church of Christ (long) Message-Id: <1992Nov18.215049.26996@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Sender: news@cbfsb.cb.att.com Organization: AT&T References: Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:50:49 GMT Apparently-To: att-mt!soc-religion-christian Moderator, sorry to drag this out (I didn't bother posting an ad nauseum response originally), but this is full of misinformation. Sorry for the slight sarcasm. Post or trash at will. In article conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes: >I don't have a complete history of them, and I don't mean to slam >anyone, but the movement that this church has grown out of has been >accused of being a cult by many people, including ones who have been >part of it before. This statement is also true if the subject is . Favorite so-called "cults" to me are the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses. >Here's a bried history of the movement, but the accuracy is not 100% >since I haven't been involved in it. Certainly understandable. >The movement began at a church >in Gainesville, Florida, called the Crossroads Church of Christ. They >were fed up with the "old" Church of Christ (coc) attitude that was >basically stale and self-centered. I'm very familiar with this attitude >because I grew up in a small-town CoC which exhibited this. They >decided that they needed to do something about it and especially about >spreading the Gospel. Their main emphasis became sharing the Gospel >with everyone they could get their hands on. They enjoyed tremendous >success and still are. They were accused of being a cult. The were "disfellowshipped" by many "mainline" churches of Christ. They, though, modeled a lot of what they were doing after the mega-Madison church of Christ in Tennessee. >This movement has evolved into one that is termed the "New Church of Christ". I go to one and haven't ever heard this term. >world-wide leadership is based in Boston at the Boston CoC where the >main minister is Kip McKean. They have planted many churches throughout >the world in places like San Fransisco, San Diego, Chicago, London, Kip is not the evangelist in Boston. Hey! You forgot New York! How could you forget New York! ;-) >The new convert >is expected to confess his/her sins to the mentor, who in turn, confesses >them to his/her superior, and on up the ladder to the preacher, who will >often preach on these specific sins in his sermons. Huh? While I'm sure this has happened, gossip is not an *accepted* practice here. FWIW, Crossroads was accused of this very thing, also. We do not betray a confidence. >Beyond this, their >practices become extremely (unhealthily) legalistic. Although they >can quote Scripture very impressively, the main thrust of their ministry >is evangelism. Well, I wish the guys *I* disciple could quote Scripture impressively, but no cigar. I'll pass the complement on to them, though. ;-) >I've heard many stories of people cornering others in >church and asking them how many people they've "led to the Lord" the >past week. I've heard them, too. If I remember correctly, the people who were cornering others got cornered. Big time. Apologies all around. Change. I had a discipler tell me I was seeing my favorite girl too much. I asked our evangelist what HE thought. Sort of quote: "He said WHAT!?!?" He married us a little over 19 months ago. ;-) The point is, mistakes happen. Bag the pride and try to understand and often the dirt just "comes out in the wash." >I've experienced myself the guilt placed upon me because I >wasn't real comfortable with shoving flyers in people's hands at a rally >they sponsored in downtown San Fransisco several years ago. I understand. I've done things I was uncomfortable with myself. Both at work and church. To be honest with you, though, if our evangelist were convinced I could help people by standing on the corner and handing out tracts, I would try it. Call me gullible. Call me brainwashed. The truth is, I like learning from people, and I happen to trust him. >The whole >measure of their spirituality seems to be based on how many non-Christians >they're teaching and how many people they've baptized recently. Well, the evangelists *I* know here are teaching the *opposite* of what this says. They (and I) wish I would stop measuring my spirituality this way, telling me (and rightly so) I get my self esteem from my performance instead of God's love. Maybe someone (Kip maybe) ought to come down and set them straight. ;-) >A man >in my Sunday school class this past week was commenting on the church in >Houston that is a Crossroads church. He said they had a "score-board" >listing how many baptisms they'd had over a period of time. Sounds like a good idea. Baptisms are a Good Thing. Of course, you've NEVER seen attendance or (GASP!) contribution posted on a "score-board" at other churches! ;-) >The dangers of this movement are not really in the goals they are trying >to achieve, but in the atmosphere of strict legalism that it fosters. >I've known several people who have deep emotional scars after being >involved in this movement. It's very difficult to experience the love >of God in such a place when your performance is what allows you to >receive the love and respect of your fellow Christians. There are certainly alternative explanations for most deep emotional scars. For *most*, the church here has been a place where deep emotional scars begin to heal. >This atmosphere causes a very high rate of burn-out. The church in >Gainesville has since abandoned this movement several years ago. There >is another large CoC in Boston that is comprised mainly of burn-outs >from the Boston CoC. Let's see. Just for comparison purposes, "mainline" churches of Christ do better than most denominations at retaining converts. Their retention rate is around 20%. The so-called "Boston" churches of Christ run right at 50%. >The atmosphere attracts a large number of people >who have addictive personalities. They are often recovering substance- >abusers. As is often the case with addicts, they substitute on form >of addiction for another. And what better form of addiction than >religion? You can justify almost everything you do. But just as >substance abuse is unhealthy, so is religious addiction (abuse). Huh? (Again). Not in my experience. I know a few. Most are not. We do, however, pay a lot more attention to this than most. One of our evangelists in NYC had previously set up the only government- approved, church-sponsored treatment home (I forgot what they called it) in Louisville, KY. He has worked (and lobbied) hard to help people like this here, too. >They seem to have a pat >scriptural answer to absolutely any objection you might raise. If this is so, maybe he ought to *read* the scriptural answer. I HATE writing stuff like this - it makes ME feel contentious and I HATE conflict. But it would be wrong for me to allow such horrific misinformation to continue to be bantered about. Mark -- Mark Wuest | *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!! mark.wuest@att.com | mdw@cheshire.att.com (NeXT Mail) | 18-Sep-92 20:06:15-GMT,2971;000000000001 Received: from gate.oxy.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15457; Fri, 18 Sep 92 16:06:09 EDT Received: by gate.oxy.edu (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA24033; Fri, 18 Sep 92 13:06:05 PDT Subject: personal experiences with the church of Christ From: servant@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) To: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <236646@tiger.oxy.edu> Date: 18 Sep 92 12:27:30 PST Status: O  From gate.oxy.edu!lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu!retro on 09/12/91 at 7:41 >From gate.oxy.edu!lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu!retro on 09/12/91 at 7:41 Received: by oxy.edu; Thu, 12 Sep 91 07:41:59 PST (PxMM 5.2a2) Received: from lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu by gate.oxy.edu (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA14102; Thu, 12 Sep 91 07:34:14 PDT Received: from ([129.236.20.79]) by lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA08545; Thu, 12 Sep 91 09:28:37 EDT Message-Id: <9109121328.AA08545@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 09:30:02 EDT From: retro@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu To: servant@oxy.edu Subject: Boston church of Christ Jedidiah Jon Palosaari, I believe I once had contact with a group with a similar name at Rutgers University in Newark, NJ. The campus group was affiliated with a Church in Manhattan (whose exact name elludes me, it was two years since I'd heard of them). I am an Evangelical believer and I recall strange cultish adherance to doctrine I disagreed with (e.i. exclusive membership and attendance at the Manhattan congregation, etc.). If this sounds like to group you're interested in and you have specific questions or responses, feel free to forward them to me and I'll try to respond. One note, I'll be out of the country over the next month and my not respond in a timely fashion. John Webber Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory email retro@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu >From gate.oxy.edu!media-lab.media.mit.edu!cwren on 09/12/91 at 9:57 Received: by oxy.edu; Thu, 12 Sep 91 09:57:48 PST (PxMM 5.2a2) Received: from media-lab.media.mit.edu by gate.oxy.edu (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA16526; Thu, 12 Sep 91 09:52:20 PDT Received: by media-lab.media.mit.edu (5.57/DA1.0.3) id AA09239; Thu, 12 Sep 91 12:55:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 12:55:41 -0400 From: Christopher Wren Message-Id: <9109121655.AA09239@media-lab.media.mit.edu> To: servant@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) Subject: Re: Boston church of Christ They're obnoxious. My girlfrind and I were invided (by another member of my girlfriend's lab) to a barbeque in the cortyard of one of the grad buildings. We went and had an ok time - no mention of BCC was ever made. They decided to go to the on-campus movie and got very agitated when they found out that Donna nad I were going to leave. After that they constantly bothered Donna with phone calls and at work, and managed to leave quite a few messages at my house (quite a bit off campus). After about two weeks they finally left us alone. Why are you compiling stories about BCC? Chris 18-Sep-92 20:06:18-GMT,4011;000000000001 Received: from gate.oxy.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15445; Fri, 18 Sep 92 16:06:03 EDT Received: by gate.oxy.edu (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA24020; Fri, 18 Sep 92 13:05:59 PDT Subject: how to find out more about the church of christ, boston From: servant@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) To: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <236644@tiger.oxy.edu> Date: 18 Sep 92 12:25:54 PST Status: O From: Allan Poindexter Jedidiah, There are several books I have found about the Boston movement. All of them are written by detractors of it. I have had trouble finding "official" or semi-official publications of this group. I did get a couple of pointers to some yesterday. I'll let you know if anything pans out. The books: What Does the Boston Movement Teach? Vol. 1 & 2 Jerry Jones, Th.D. available from: Mid-America Book and Tape Sales 12880 Bittick Bridgeton, Missouri 63044 314-739-6434 The Discipling Movement Maurice Bennett The Discipling Dilemma Flavil R. Yeakley, Jr. available from: Cult Awareness Network (CAN) 2421 West Pratt Blvd. Chicago IL 60645 312-267-7777 A couple of groups that are familiar with the Boston Movement are: Cult Awareness Network (see above) Spiritual Counterfeits Project POB 4308 Berkeley, CA 94704 I'll send you more later when I have the time. Random observations: If you want to help your friends you need to start by taking care of yourself. Make sure that you have a strong group of believing friends who will help monitor you for any effect that the group might have on you. While I am not convinced that the group has quite the "mind control" powers that CAN seems to believe they have it is true that they will use techniques that have the effect of making you more conducive to new ideas. They will also attempt to use the Bible to trap you into making decisions they want you to make. Some of their arguments are quite subtle and require signifcant knowledge of Scripture to refute fully. If you are introduced to an idea that is new or "weird" by them *don't succumb to the pressure to make an immediate decision*. Follow the tried and true adage of businessmen: Don't sign the contract at the negotiating table. Tell them you need to think about it and then mull it over and consult others about it. I will be glad to help you sort through anything you might encounter if you like. I have not encountered much that is actually *deceptive* in this group; however, there is much that is ill advised. For example, midnight bible studies have the effect of making one more receptive to what they teach. I don't believe that they plan the studies to weaken your defenses. I believe they are thinking about the dedication that such a BS implies. So they are not actually plotting something devious. Just doing something that is unwise. Keep in mind that it is likely when dealing with members of this group that many are probably brothers and sisters in Christ who are confused about some things (as are we all) and treat them accordingly (i.e. with love). Since they can be quite frustrating at times this is sometimes a very important point to remember. While many call this group a cult most of their theology is orthodox. They do have a problem in the area of using works to validate salvation and a few other minor points but major points such as the Trinity, Virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, etc. seem to be in order. They may be considered a sociological cult (as opposed to a theological one) but the evidence I have seen on this is mixed. I am still trying to pin down this group. The group seems to be undergoing a *phenomenal* amount of change. As a result what is said about it today may not be true tomorrow. I would like to know more about you and your friends who are getting involved. Please tell me anything about yourself and your friends you would be comfortable telling a someone you just met and please keep me posted on what is going on. tntigwi, dex 18-Sep-92 20:06:22-GMT,3511;000000000001 Received: from gate.oxy.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15451; Fri, 18 Sep 92 16:06:05 EDT Received: by gate.oxy.edu (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA24009; Fri, 18 Sep 92 13:05:55 PDT Subject: definition of a cult, associated with church of christ discussion From: servant@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) To: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <236641@tiger.oxy.edu> Date: 18 Sep 92 12:24:11 PST Status: O >From gate.oxy.edu!cheshire.oxy.edu!servant on 03/03/92 at 10:33 Received: by oxy.edu; Tue, 03 Mar 92 10:33:47 PST (PxMM 5.2e7) Received: from cheshire.oxy.edu by gate.oxy.edu (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA09998; Tue, 3 Mar 92 10:23:56 PST Received: by cheshire.oxy.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04377; Tue, 3 Mar 92 10:22:31 PST Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 10:22:31 PST From: servant@cheshire.oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) Message-Id: <9203031822.AA04377@cheshire.oxy.edu> To: servant@oxy.edu >From cheshire.oxy.edu!usc!rpi!think.com!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!dumas.rutgers.edu!christian Tue Feb 18 10:31:39 PST 1992 I think Judy's defining characteristics of a cult were right on the mark. I thought I would add a little to the discussion. The "Council on Mind Abuse" is an independent, non-profit organization which educates people on cults, and helps people who have had some harmful involvement with them. Here are a list of a few key identifying features of a harmful cult, from the organization's introductory pamphlet: REPLACEMENT OF RELATIONSHIPS - Destroying pre-cult families by arranging cult marriages and "families". CONFUSING DOCTRINE - Encouraging blind acceptance and rejection of logic through complex features on an incomprehensible doctrine. REJECTION OF OLD VALUES - Accelerating acceptance of new life style by constantly denouncing former values and beliefs. UNCOMPROMISING RULES - Inducing regression and disorientation by soliciting agreement to seemingly simple rules which regulate mealtimes, bathroom breaks, and use of medications. VERBAL ABUSE - Desensitizing through bombardment with foul and abusive language. DRESS CODES - Removing individuality by demanding conformity to the group by dress code. CONFESSION - Encouraging the destruction of individual ego through confession of personal weaknesses and innermost feelings and doubts. NO QUESTIONS - Accomplishing automatic acceptance of beliefs by discouraging questions. GUILT - Reinforcing the need for `salvation' by exaggerating the sins of the former lifestyle. FINANCIAL COMMITMENT - Achieving increased dependence on the group by `burning bridges' to past, through the donation of assets. FEAR - Maintaining loyalty and obedience to the group by threatening soul, life, or limb for the slightest `negative' thought, word, or deed. The Council on Mind Abuse can be reached at (416) 944-0080, or by writing to them at COUNCIL ON MIND ABUSE 40 St. Clair Avenue East Suite 203 Toronto, Ont. CANADA M4T 1M9 -- Mark Towfiq, FTP Software, towfiq@FTP.COM, W:+1 617 224 6275, H:+1 617 488 2818 O SON OF DUST! The wise are they that speak not unless they obtain a hearing, even as the cup-bearer, who proffereth not his cup till he findeth a seeker, and the lover who crieth not out from the depths of his heart until he gazeth upon the beauty of his beloved. Wherefore sow the seeds of wisdom and knowledge in the pure soil of the heart, and keep them hidden, till the hyacinths of divine wisdom spring from the heart and not from mire and clay. -- The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah 18-Sep-92 20:07:27-GMT,54839;000000000001 Received: from gate.oxy.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15454; Fri, 18 Sep 92 16:06:06 EDT Received: by gate.oxy.edu (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA24026; Fri, 18 Sep 92 13:06:02 PDT Subject: doctrine of the church of Christ (*pro and con*, mostly pro) From: servant@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) To: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <236645@tiger.oxy.edu> Date: 18 Sep 92 12:26:42 PST Status: O From: Chuck Hedrick We've just had a discussion on this subject, so I'm reluctant to post this. Here, and in the posting quoted in the first one, are some postings containing most of the information from that discussion. Note that the first postings supports the suggestion made in the second that this group may be changing, with at least some churches becoming more "mainstream". ----- From: WOODRUFF@ucf1vm.bitnet subject: Re: San Francisco Church of Christ In article , rmiller@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Robert Miller) says: > >Shepherding is one of the concerns about the Boston Church of Christ, and >it goes way beyond the use of a confessor. In that church it reaches >the extreme where the person discipling a church member defines the >status of that person's relationship with God. This person claims >absolute authority over the member's life, both spiritually and >otherwise. It is not uncommon for a church member to be coerced into >doing work for the church (more on this later) by threatening him >with his salvation. Interesting. I'm a member of the Orlando Church of Christ, a daughter church of the Boston Church of Christ and I've: a) never heard of "shepherding" b) never had anyone define my relationship with God (except by explaining that prayer constitutes the core of it) c) never had anyone claim to have authority over my life d) never been coerced into doing work e) never had my salvation threatened (in the usual sense) by anyone Where are you getting your information? Jim and Tammy Bakker? >A more serious concern in my opinion is that salvation is defined by >membership in the Boston Church of Christ or in a related church. >The Boston Church of Christ teaches that salvation is by baptism in the >name of Jesus (not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). I was baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and everyone else in Boston, Orlando, Chicago, New York, Port Au Prince, Jakarta, Johannesburg, etc. was baptised similarly. The only people baptised in the name of Jesus were the blokes in Acts who didn't receive the holy spirit as a result. >Furthermore, baptism doesn't save you unless you have faith in the >baptism while it is being administered. Therefore, if you are not >baptised in a church which teaches that you are saved by baptism in >the name of Jesus, then your baptism is invalid. To my knowledge >the Boston Church of Christ is the only church with this teaching >about baptism. Look in a concordance under "Baptism" or "Faith". Or read Hebrews. Our faith saves us. Not baptism *per se*. But our faith and participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. And the resulting new life we live afterwards. >The Boston Church of Christ gives lip service to justification by >faith, but instead teaches justification by works. The basic idea >here is that if you have faith you will be motivated by the Holy >Spirit to perform the works. While the idea is basically sound, in >practice the Boston Church of Christ tells the member what works he >or she is to perform. The most important of the works is evangelism. >The salvation of a church member is brought into question if he or >she does not bring enough converts into the church. Would Jesus have been the Messiah if he didn't go to the cross? Surely he had the holy spirit! In the same way, are you following God if you ignore Matthew 28: 18-20? If we remain in him, and he in us, we will bear fruit. If we're not, we try to address the problem (in my case, always some sin I wasn't willing to repent of--selfishness, pride, idolatry, etc.). >In addition there is a total denial of the miraculous after the books >of the Bible are written, and there are also some truly strange doctrines >they believe quite strongly. One of these is that the use of musical >instruments to worship God is forbidden by the church. I've seen more miracles in the last year than all those detailed in the Bible. I'm reasonably confident the same holds true for everyone else in the church. As for musical instruments, they aren't mentioned in the New Testament, so we don't use them. They're not forbidden; but given that we're trying to mimic the churches of the New Testament, we opt not to use them. We do have a rock band, though (approaching heavy metal). (I'm still waiting for us to dance in church ala David.) >When I went to college at Harvard from 1983 through 1987, the Boston >Church of Christ was legendary. I consider their recruitment practices >to be unethical. I was a member of a Christian Fellowship, and one >thing the Boston Church of Christ would do is examine our lists of people >interested in Bible studies then go talk to the people on the list before >we did, saying they were from the Fellowship. Once people were in their >Bible study they were discouraged from associating with any Christian >outside the Church. That's a serious accusation. Did you approach the people who did this and confront them with their sin (ala Matthew 18)? I'm sure IF such an incident happend that the people involved would repent. Our "recruitment practices" are pretty simple down here: a) Talk to people, ask them if they'd like to come to a Bible Talk--an informal Bible discussion. If they say yes, bring 'em. If not, encourage them to read the book of Mark or John and try again later. b) Hold parties. Invite everyone to Bible Talks. Whether someone comes to a Bible Talk or not (I didn't until after I'd become a disciple) we try to set up personal Bible studies to show them what it means to be a Christian so they can decide for themselves whether or not they want to become one. >There were a couple of church members whom I spoke to who struck me as >being truly committed to Christ and having a sense of peace about them. >I have noticed that these people all left the church eventually. I've known four people who've fallen away. Some were strong, some were weak. All became involved in sexual immorality and fell away as a result. >Robert >rmiller@sbcs.sunysb.edu mark BTW: We use the word "disciple" in various forms a lot. Like: disciple--a Christian (Acts 11) disciple--to teach, correct, or rebuke ("I had to disciple him on his pride") disciple--to fix ("My car sinned against me. I need to disciple the alternator") discipling--teaching/correcting/rebuking discipleship--the act of being a disciple ("Peter exemplified discipleship when he took Paul's correction") We claim to be disciples as Peter, Paul, Apollos, Stephen, Timothy, etc. were. [This is the reason why in my original comment I simply pointed out dangers that had been observed in related movements. Ultimately you're going to have to judge for yourself whether it applies to your church. --clh] ------------- From: Poindexter@vdle7.csc.ti.com (Allan Poindexter) Subject: RE: San Francisco Church of Christ I was planning on posting on the Boston Movement in the Church of Christ soon but this seems like a good opportunity so I'll do it now. The San Francisco CoC is indeed part of the Boston movement. I have studied the group pretty intensively lately and this is a thumbnail sketch of my current understanding of their history, doctrine, and practices. Official information is hard to come by because the group is somewhat decentralized. The following is a compilation of information given by people both in and out of the movement, and various publications of both the Boston church, its affiliates, and its detractors. It should also be noted that the best evidence I have been able to glean seems to indicate that the movement is in the process of splitting or perhaps even shattering. There do seem to be some marked differences between the churches in various cities. Brief History The Boston movement is a very controversial branch of the Church of Christ. The Church of Christ is a denomination (although they wouldn't like that term) which dates back to the 1800's and grew out of the work of Stone and Campbell on what was then the frontier. Both men came from a Presbyterian background but grew dissatisfied with that and started movements of their own. These two separate groups later merged briefly but then split again. One became what is today called the Disciples of Christ and the other became the "churches of Christ". What is now known as the Boston movement was started in Gainesville, Florida in the early 1970's by a man named Chuck Lucas with the Crossroads Church of Christ. Although I haven't found the exact link with the sheperding movement which also started in Florida during that time it seems highly probable that Crossroads movement was heavily influenced by them. The roots of the sheperding/discipling movement have been traced to a combination of the practice of spiritual direction in the RC church, the pietists in the Wesleyan movement, Watchman Nee, certain parachurch organizations (notably Navigators and Campus Crusade), and developments in the charismatic movement. None of these groups (with possible excepton of the RC spiritual directors and of course that part of the charismatic movement which went on to become the discipling movement) practiced the full blown discipling methods of the sheperding movement. They did all provide influences which eventually coalesced into that method. For reasons which I can't document the Crossroads church and Chuck Lucas dropped out of the movement in the late 80's and the Boston church led by Kip McKean became the leading church in the movement. Doctrine The Church of Christ believes in the autonomy of each local congregation so it is impossible to talk of "official" doctrine; however, there are a few themes which are common to almost all of the churches. I know of three major groupings in the Church of Christ: the "instrumental" churches of Christ, the "non-instrumental" churches of Christ, and the Boston/Crossroads movement. Two years ago I would have thought the term "instrumental" church of Christ was an oxymoron. I am told, however, that there are some churches of Christ in the north that are indeed instrumental and also differ on some other matters of doctrine. I am not very familiar with them and will let some one better qualified than myself summarize their doctrine. The "non-instrumental" churches are very prevalent in Texas. For example, there are 3 columns of them in the Dallas yellow pages. The Boston movement grew out of this branch of the churches of Christ. Doctrinally the two groups are very similar. The Boston group differs more in the area of practice than doctrine. Baptism Both groups believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. They do not view baptism as a "work" and so do not see this as contradicting biblical statements about the sufficiency of faith for salvation. The language often used is that baptism is not a "ground" for salvation but is a "condition" for it. The Boston group goes further and believes that one must have "a disciple's heart" in order for a baptism to be valid. There have apparently been a large number of rebaptisms in the past 2-5 years as a result of this as many members from other CoC have doubted there purity at the time of their original baptism. One leader was quoted as saying "People in the churches of Christ who have not been discipled first and then baptized are not saved..." and goes on to say "the vast majority of people in the church of Christ are not saved". If your heart was not pure enough then baptism is not valid in their view. This infuriates members of the "mainline" CoC. One last note: I believe both mainline and Boston churches baptize in the name of Jesus only. Non-instrumental worship CoC doctrine prohibits the use of instruments in worship. All singing is done a capella. The reasoning behind this is convoluted and incoherent so I won't try to reproduce it here. One Boston member has told me that this is not true of Boston churches but I have yet to see an instrument used in worship services at the Boston movement church in Dallas. Name of a church CoC spurn the designation "denomination" based on their reading of 1 Cor 1:10-17. The only name which is valid for a Christian group is "church of Christ". The Boston churches are almost always of the form " Church of Christ". This has been traced to the influence of Watchman Nee and his belief that there should only be one church in a given city. The only exception I know of to this naming convention is the Dallas/Fort Wort Church of Christ Jesus which was renamed to distinguish it from the other churches of Christ in the area. This would seem to violate their reading of 1 Cor 1:10-17 but they did it anyway. Works, Salvation, and Discipleship Both groups believe in the necessity of obedience for salvation; however, for the Boston group this entails much more than for the mainline churches. In the Boston group obedience to God means obedience to your discipler. More on this later when I discuss practices. Autonomy Individual congregations are independent of each other. The Boston movement is accused by mainline churches of violating this principle since the leaders of each church have a their discipler someone in another church "higher up" in the heirarchy. The "mainline" CoC sees this as a "papacy". Other Christian groups Many CoC people are fond of saying they are "Christians only but not the only Christians"; however, there are some CoCs which believe there are few or no Christians outside the CoC. Boston movement people seem to usually fall in the latter category. The leader of the Boston church in Dallas has been reported as saying he only knows of a very few true Christians (or disciples as they are fond of calling Christians) outside the Boston movement. Tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit These are basically seen as limited to the time of Acts. Some CoC folk can be quite vociferous on this point and would almost lead you to believe that it is one of the worst heresies you could believe in. Practices The chief problems reported about the Boston movement are usually related to abuses of the discipling methods they use. In the Boston movement everyone has an individual discipler who exercises a great deal of authority over his charges. Since he is an individual the usual safeguards that result from having a group of leaders are disabled. One Boston leader has been quoted as "If your House Church leader came in and said, `I want everybody here to wear a red shirt,' then everybody has to wear a red shirt." Even the personality of the discipler is to be imitated. Flavil Yeakley did a study using the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator which indicated that the personalities of members gravitated towards a particular personality type (ESFJ for those who are interested). There have also been accusations of disciplers approving who one may date or how often. I am personally acquainted with one situation where a person was told he *must* date. There are also claims that the discipler will order 40 day fasts, who one must marry, midnight Bible studies, confession of sins, a strict daily schedule, more evangelism (one can never measure up in this area), prohibitions to move to a city without a Boston church in it, and other things too numerous to mention. I am personally aware of a few instances of these such as a one day fast (not 40), a few midnight BS, someone instructed not to move, and the confession of sins. The failure to evangelize (translated wins converts) receives such condemnation that it almost needs a category by itself. The failure to produce "fruit" is seen as proof that one's conversion is counterfeit. These abuses are perodically recognized by the leaders and statements are made about correcting them. However, it seems unlikely that any real progress will be made until the single-individual-has-authority model is modified. Evaluation The strong points of the Boston movement are enthusiasm and boldness in presenting their message. These people are really excited about God and miss very few opportunities to tell people about it. Clearly, some of the doctrines of both the "mainline" CoC and the Boston movement are unbiblical and need to be rejected. The emphasis on baptism and other acts of "obedience" as required for salvation is contrary to the clear presentation of grace in Scripture. In comparing the two groups it does seem that the Boston movement has moved another standard deviation beyond the already questionable stance of the "mainline" CoC in this regard. The discipling method has repeatedly proved itself dangerous from the early days of its use by RC spiritual directors down to the charismatic sheperding movement. (It should be noted that modern RC "spiritual direction" has many safeguards that the original practice did not so it should not be compared to the discipling movements of today.) If you are considering joining this group I would recommend against it for these reasons. The Boston movement has seen a great deal of change over the past 5-8 years. It is difficult to tell where it will end up. I noted in Christianity Today recently that the last(?) of the Fort Lauderdale "sheperding" leaders apologized recently for the harm caused by the discipling movement. The original charismatic "sheperding" movement has pretty much disbanded and now only lives on in its CoC incarnation. This at least should give some hope that the evolution of the Boston group will follow a similar pattern. The Boston movement could have much to offer if its enthuasiasm was harnessed for real evangelism (that is the good news of grace) in stead of the current dysangelism of works they currently advocate. I know that a couple of Boston movement people read s.r.c. Hopefully they will be able to fill in gaps I have left and make corrections for us. dex -------- From: WOODRUFF@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu Subject: RE: San Francisco Church of Christ >I was planning on posting on the Boston Movement in the Church of Christ >soon but this seems like a good opportunity so I'll do it now. The San >Francisco CoC is indeed part of the Boston movement. I have studied the >group pretty intensively lately and this is a thumbnail sketch of my >current understanding of their history, doctrine, and practices. >Official information is hard to come by because the group is somewhat >decentralized. The following is a compilation of information given by >people both in and out of the movement, and various publications of both >the Boston church, its affiliates, and its detractors. It should also >be noted that the best evidence I have been able to glean seems to >indicate that the movement is in the process of splitting or perhaps >even shattering. There do seem to be some marked differences between >the churches in various cities. Even with the best of intentions, such a technique will guarantee false results for the same reason that allowing hearsay in court will guarantee false convictions. If you're looking for information, go to the source. Look on the back of BCC's latest bulletin and call Kip McKean or one of the Elders of the Church. Their home numbers are always printed there. You can also contact the editor of Discipleship magazine. They have published histories of the church and comparison studies of doctrine a couple of different times (the last issue had a very high level one on the history of the churches since the first century). If you're interested, I'll mail you the address (snail mail--they aren't on the net). > > Brief History > >The Boston movement is a very controversial branch of the Church of >Christ. The Church of Christ is a denomination (although they wouldn't >like that term) which dates back to the 1800's and grew out of the work >of Stone and Campbell on what was then the frontier. Both men came from >a Presbyterian background but grew dissatisfied with that and started >movements of their own. These two separate groups later merged briefly >but then split again. One became what is today called the Disciples of >Christ and the other became the "churches of Christ". There are a number of good books on the restorationist movement, and some directories of all the different Churches of Christ and their histories. Look in any Christian book store. >What is now known >as the Boston movement was started in Gainesville, Florida in the early >1970's by a man named Chuck Lucas with the Crossroads Church of Christ. >Although I haven't found the exact link with the sheperding movement >which also started in Florida during that time it seems highly probable >that Crossroads movement was heavily influenced by them. >The roots of >the sheperding/discipling movement have been traced to a combination of >the practice of spiritual direction in the RC church, the pietists in >the Wesleyan movement, Watchman Nee, certain parachurch organizations >(notably Navigators and Campus Crusade), and developments in the >charismatic movement. None of these groups (with possible excepton of >the RC spiritual directors and of course that part of the charismatic >movement which went on to become the discipling movement) practiced the >full blown discipling methods of the shepherding movement. They did all >provide influences which eventually coalesced into that method. Actually, the roots of discipling came when someone observed: 1) Jesus was always with his disciples, teaching them, and correcting them in "real time" in "real life". 2) Jesus commanded his disciples to do the same in Matthew 28 That's all. >For >reasons which I can't document the Crossroads church and Chuck Lucas >dropped out of the movement in the late 80's and the Boston church led >by Kip McKean became the leading church in the movement. Again, there are a lot of mainstream books on this. Basically, Kip dropped out in '79 because personality cults were developing where individuals considered themselves above the Bible and would not stand for correction by their peers. Since there were several personalities whose pride overwhelmed them, the result was a series of factions within the Gainesville church until it was essentially destroyed. > > Doctrine > >The Church of Christ believes in the autonomy of each local congregation >so it is impossible to talk of "official" doctrine; however, there are a >few themes which are common to almost all of the churches. I know of >three major groupings in the Church of Christ: the "instrumental" >churches of Christ, the "non-instrumental" churches of Christ, and the >Boston/Crossroads movement. > >Two years ago I would have thought the term "instrumental" church of >Christ was an oxymoron. I am told, however, that there are some >churches of Christ in the north that are indeed instrumental and also >differ on some other matters of doctrine. I am not very familiar with >them and will let some one better qualified than myself summarize their >doctrine. > >The "non-instrumental" churches are very prevalent in Texas. For >example, there are 3 columns of them in the Dallas yellow pages. The >Boston movement grew out of this branch of the churches of Christ. >Doctrinally the two groups are very similar. The Boston group differs >more in the area of practice than doctrine. You can't really say that that BCC grew out of churches in Texas since there was never an influence (I doubt if anyone in Boston was aware in any real since of the churches in Texas until Boston tried to plant a church there). Texas churches almost form their own denomination. You can say the BCC came from the American Restorationist school which tried to restore a) the Bible as the Word of God and b) the Bible as a model to be lived by. (Although sounding similar, they are radically different from the Fundamentalist/Evangelical movement.) As for the instrumentation, the whole argument boils down to this: Instruments are never mentioned as being used in worship in the New Testament. Should we use them? Some say yes, since they aren't excluded. Some say no. We say "we don't know, but we don't use them and no one seems to mind." God either doesn't want them to be used, or doesn't care so we appear not to be displeasing him. That churches have been split on this speaks volumes on human pride. >Baptism > >Both groups believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. They do >not view baptism as a "work" and so do not see this as contradicting >biblical statements about the sufficiency of faith for salvation. The >language often used is that baptism is not a "ground" for salvation but >is a "condition" for it. Baptism is your participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is how you die to your old sinful nature and are born again to live a new life. >The Boston group goes further and believes >that one must have "a disciple's heart" in order for a baptism to be >valid. There have apparently been a large number of rebaptisms in the >past 2-5 years as a result of this as many members from other CoC have >doubted there purity at the time of their original baptism. One leader >was quoted as saying "People in the churches of Christ who have not been >discipled first and then baptized are not saved..." and goes on to say >"the vast majority of people in the church of Christ are not saved". If >your heart was not pure enough then baptism is not valid in their view. Matthew 18 teaches us to make disciples and baptize them. Basically this means someone has to make a real commitment to follow Jesus completely for the rest of his or her life before he or she can be baptized. Very few people in traditional churches make that commitment. (Luke 14 has a good passage about that commitment.) >This infuriates members of the "mainline" CoC. One last note: I believe >both mainline and Boston churches baptize in the name of Jesus only. You may believe that. It isn't true. In Boston, Orlando, Jacksonville, Miami, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad, or Barbados everyone has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Ghost). >Non-instrumental worship > >CoC doctrine prohibits the use of instruments in worship. All singing >is done a capella. The reasoning behind this is convoluted and >incoherent so I won't try to reproduce it here. One Boston member has >told me that this is not true of Boston churches but I have yet to see >an instrument used in worship services at the Boston movement church in >Dallas. See above. Instruments are widely used in worship, but not in the worship SERVICE for the reason given above. >Name of a church > >CoC spurn the designation "denomination" based on their reading of 1 Cor >1:10-17. The only name which is valid for a Christian group is "church >of Christ". The Boston churches are almost always of the form "city> Church of Christ". This has been traced to the influence of >Watchman Nee and his belief that there should only be one church in a >given city. The only exception I know of to this naming convention is >the Dallas/Fort Wort Church of Christ Jesus which was renamed to >distinguish it from the other churches of Christ in the area. This >would seem to violate their reading of 1 Cor 1:10-17 but they did it >anyway. Denomination = in the name of Lutheranism is in the name of Martin Luther. Weslyanism is in the name of John Wesley. etc. Since the assumption is that a Christian church is in the name of Christ, the Churches of Christ are not considered a denomination. As for why there is usually one church per city, the reason is simple: that's the way it was always done in the New Testament (Church at Ephesus, Corinth, Thessolonica, etc.). *********************************************************************** ** IMPORTANT POINT TO UNDERSTAND: ** ** The source of what the BCC does is nearly always from following ** ** the New Testament model. Splitting churches in zones is a not, ** ** but it is not contrary to anything in the new testament. ** *********************************************************************** The Church ALWAYS follows this pattern. If they do something, look for a scriptural reason for it first (99.99% of the time) then look to mind of one of the church members. (Conceivably the churches could have been called "Church of God" since that's also used in the New Testament. But there are already enough Churches of God (there are two on one street in Orlando)). >Works, Salvation, and Discipleship > >Both groups believe in the necessity of obedience for salvation; >however, for the Boston group this entails much more than for the >mainline churches. In the Boston group obedience to God means obedience >to your discipler. More on this later when I discuss practices. > >Autonomy > >Individual congregations are independent of each other. The Boston >movement is accused by mainline churches of violating this principle >since the leaders of each church have a their discipler someone in >another church "higher up" in the hierarchy. The "mainline" CoC sees >this as a "papacy". Let's see, who disciples Kip? I think it's someone much lower in your church hierarchy as I recall. I think the Orlando evangelist disciples the Miami evangelist who disciples the Sector leader of the Americas. The hierarchy: Sector Leader + Zone Leader | | Evangelist <----------+ Sector Leader Zone Leader Bible Talk Leader Positions above Evangelist rotate around constantly (Kip was Evangelist in the Boston Church; now he's the sector leader of CAFE (Caribean, Africa, Far-East, Europe)). In essence: there is no pope. You get discipled by whoever is available who helps you get closer to Christ. (This is also scriptural. Look at the leaders in Jerusalem--the most spiritual advanced church--discipling the younger churches. Then look at Peter, the "Pope", getting rebuked by Paul, or isn't even an Evangelist for a Church!) > >Other Christian groups > >Many CoC people are fond of saying they are "Christians only but not the >only Christians"; however, there are some CoCs which believe there are >few or no Christians outside the CoC. Boston movement people seem to >usually fall in the latter category. The leader of the Boston church in >Dallas has been reported as saying he only knows of a very few true >Christians (or disciples as they are fond of calling Christians) outside >the Boston movement. Yep. >Tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit > >These are basically seen as limited to the time of Acts. Some CoC folk >can be quite vociferous on this point and would almost lead you to >believe that it is one of the worst heresies you could believe in. Judging by how he reacted, my roommate thought the worst sin in the world was letting a sister he liked into our bedroom to leave a card on his desk when the room was a mess. But he didn't really think that; only acted like it for a bit. > Practices > >The chief problems reported about the Boston movement are usually >related to abuses of the discipling methods they use. In the Boston >movement everyone has an individual discipler who exercises a great deal >of authority over his charges. Since he is an individual the usual >safeguards that result from having a group of leaders are disabled. There may be a church someone that still uses individual disciplers. The churches I'm familiar with don't. The problem with individual disciplers, I've been told, are twofold: 1) they're not really scriptural, 2) they can be very destructive if misused. I'm not sure when you're quoting from, but I've heard there were some serious abuses in the early 80's, enough to cause a massive church-wide repentance (one of many--the last was over caring for the poor when the Evangelist from London came over and tore Orlando apart for what it was not doing to help the poor). In Orlando, we now use a group form of discipleship called "PiG Groups" (Partners in the Gospel) or "D-Groups" (Discipleship Groups). We have one leader, who has more of a coordinator role most of the time, and 5 to 15 other disciples. We meet once a week and share where we're at, what we're struggling with, and try to help each other overcome it. It reminds me a lot of support-groups, except that it is Biblically based. >One Boston leader has been quoted as "If your House Church leader came >in and said, `I want everybody here to wear a red shirt,' then everybody >has to wear a red shirt." Even the personality of the discipler is to be >imitated. Flavil Yeakley did a study using the Meyers Briggs Type >Indicator which indicated that the personalities of members gravitated >towards a particular personality type (ESFJ for those who are >interested). That's interesting; I'll try to do the same down here and let you know what the results are if you're interested. I'm INTP, BTW. As for imitating personalities, we had a discussion about it. My discipler pointed out that very little is mentioned of Jesus' personality, so it isn't very important. QED: Be yourself, but act like Jesus. >There have also been accusations of disciplers approving >who one may date or how often. I am personally acquainted with one >situation where a person was told he *must* date. There are also claims >that the discipler will order 40 day fasts, who one must marry, midnight >Bible studies, confession of sins, a strict daily schedule, more >evangelism (one can never measure up in this area), prohibitions to move >to a city without a Boston church in it, and other things too numerous >to mention. I am personally aware of a few instances of these such as a >one day fast (not 40), a few midnight BS, someone instructed not to >move, and the confession of sins. The failure to evangelize (translated >wins converts) receives such condemnation that it almost needs a >category by itself. The failure to produce "fruit" is seen as proof >that one's conversion is counterfeit. Let's see, I know: a) Disciples were rebuked for not dating when their reasons were selfish. b) Near-disciple went on a near-40 day fast when a disciple suggested fasting to get his heart right but forgot to tell him he could stop when his heart was right! c) One must marry another Christian. Never heard of any other restrictions. d) Been in several midnight Bible Studies when someone started studying the Bible and didn't want to stop. We studied until we dropped, slept, then continued until the person was baptized. e) God calls us to confess our sins. f) I was on a strict daily schedule for a while because I wasn't getting what I needed to get done. That's when I started using my Day-Timer a little better. I also was corrected for putting my schedule before God and others. g) I'm glad Peter and Paul weren't like you. They lived to evangelize the world, as we do. h) Anyone can move anywhere they want, just as you can chop off your hand and fling it far from your body if you want to. Neither is advised. >These abuses are periodically recognized by the leaders and statements >are made about correcting them. However, it seems unlikely that any >real progress will be made until the single-individual-has-authority >model is modified. I don't know when the individual discipling stopped. We've grown from 30 to 40,000+ in 12 years, so evidently some progress was made. > Evaluation > >The strong points of the Boston movement are enthusiasm and boldness in >presenting their message. These people are really excited about God and >miss very few opportunities to tell people about it. > >Clearly, some of the doctrines of both the "mainline" CoC and the Boston >movement are unbiblical and need to be rejected. The emphasis on >baptism and other acts of "obedience" as required for salvation is >contrary to the clear presentation of grace in Scripture. In comparing >the two groups it does seem that the Boston movement has moved another >standard deviation beyond the already questionable stance of the >"mainline" CoC in this regard. For fun, go back to a Bible commentary of the late 1800s and look at their comments on Baptism. Every so often someone reads the Bible again and decides to start following it. The result is always the same. EVERYTHING the church does comes from scripture, is not opposed to scripture, or gets corrected if in error. Remember that the Church in Corinth was a Church of Christ even though they had serious problems (1 Corinthians). They repented, corrected their mistakes, and went on serving God for some time. >The discipling method has repeatedly proved itself dangerous from the >early days of its use by RC spiritual directors down to the charismatic >sheperding movement. (It should be noted that modern RC "spiritual >direction" has many safeguards that the original practice did not so it >should not be compared to the discipling movements of today.) If you are >considering joining this group I would recommend against it for these >reasons. > >The Boston movement has seen a great deal of change over the past 5-8 >years. It is difficult to tell where it will end up. I noted in >Christianity Today recently that the last(?) of the Fort Lauderdale >"sheperding" leaders apologized recently for the harm caused by the >discipling movement. The original charismatic "sheperding" movement has >pretty much disbanded and now only lives on in its CoC incarnation. >This at least should give some hope that the evolution of the Boston >group will follow a similar pattern. The Boston movement could have >much to offer if its enthuasiasm was harnessed for real evangelism (that >is the good news of grace) in stead of the current dysangelism of works >they currently advocate. > >I know that a couple of Boston movement people read s.r.c. Hopefully >they will be able to fill in gaps I have left and make corrections for >us. While I'm not a Church historian, and have only been a disciple for a year, I hope my comments are helpful. If you want to attack Boston for doctrinal reasons because you believe "Once Saved, Always Saved" feel free. But strive to present an accurate picture for fairness' sake. mark Boy, this baby's long! [Thanks. When coupled with other responses from people involved in these churches, it sounds to me like the original criticisms were probably justified, but there have been significant changes to deal with them. The use of group discipleship seems to me like the most important of the changes. Do you know whether this is being used in all of the churches that were originally allied with the Boston Church? We got one response from a member of one of those churches who claimed that no specific kind of discipleship was being done at all. --clh] From: art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Arthur Miller) Subject: Re: San Francisco Church of Christ In regards to some comments regarding the Boston Church of Christ (Discipling) movement, I would like to add some thoughts of my own, and share some of my experiences with the affiliated Chicago Church of Christ. ut first, READ THIS DISCLAIMER: I do not claim to have full knowledge of the doctrine of the Boston movement. I do not claim to represent the movement as a whole and invite other members to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't claim to be perfect, I just wanted to express my mind. Thanks. Point #1: The movement is always changing. The Boston movement is not bound by an eternal set of rules (save the Bible itself), nor has it remained the same since its inception. As a group grows older, its membership matures and so does its leadership, and as a movement, we now have well over a decade to reflect on what is the best and most effective way to evangelize the world. Because the original churches had no such past, it was quite inevitable that they would blow it now and then. But God keeps working in the hearts of those who seek Him, and over time the movement has matured more and more. Much of the anti-cult progaganda out there takes events that occurred 20 years ago in a much less mature movement, and tries to portray these things as typical of the movement today. Few things could be further from reality. In fact, in the sixteen months I have been a member, I have seen the Chicago church change tremendously. With the change of evangelist we received in May came a renewed commitment to the poor, emphasis on being open and "real" with each other, and challenges to know the Bible better than ever. God knew exactly what this church needed, and provided it in the form of our new evangelist Ron Drabot. Changes can take place throughout the entire movement, as exemplified several years ago when Douglas Arthur of London came to the conviction by studying Jesus' example that the movement was just not doing enough to help the poor and disadvantaged. Hence, almost every church now has weekly contributions for the poor. I understand that the 1000-member San Francisco church recently raised over $200,000 for Multiple Sclerosis in one day. Our college sector here has had nights where we all get together and each bring about 1/2 doz. sack lunches, then take to the streets of Chicago to offer these to homeless people. Understand that I'm not giving these examples to say "Oh look how righteous we are", just to point out that these are now-regular occurrences which would have been pretty rare just 5 years ago. You may ask: "Why follow leaders who are always changing their minds?" For starters, it's only natural that things change. As individuals grow, they change. As a church/movement grows, it changes also. In addition, we have faith in our leaders that God is working through them. For me, a lot of this comes from the fact that they're not tied to a tradition and are open to new ideas, provided these ideas have a Biblical basis. This is quite unlike the Mennonite church I grew up in, which clung so tightly to its Amish heritage that any hint of change drew fierce opposition from the congregation. Consequently, the last decade saw three pastors relieved from duty in that church over differences with certain voiciferous members, and a church split in which 30% left to form their own church. Who knows, in ten years the leadership of the movement may come to the conviction that Christians should not support or participate in war, or something that seems similarly radical. I don't know, but this I'm sure of: Whatever God wants His church to be like, he will be able to affect these changes in the hearts of the leaders of our movement because of their humility and lack of binding tradition. You may think I'm naive, but the more I get to know the leadership of my church, the more I'm convinced that God is able to use them however He wants. Point #2: The movement stresses humility. It's pretty easy to see in the Bible (I can dig up a load of references if someone wants) that pride is one of the most dangerous sins we can cultivate. By its very nature it denies its own existence (e.g. "I'm not prideful, they're just jealous of by intellect.") Hence, pride is something that is worked on a lot in discipling relationships. You think it's fun to tell someone they're prideful? Outside of a discipling relationship, most people will never come to grips with how prideful they really are inside, and I serve as a prime example. To cultivate humility, we stress: * Openness--about our lives, feelings, dreams, attitudes, etc. * Seeking advice, one of the signs of a humble heart. * Simply doing things for the sheer humility of it: listening instead of talking, dropping plans to help someone, and most of all: admitting when you're wrong. Point #3: This is a movement with conviction. Simply put, we believe what we do and we believe it strongly. Now growing up in my Mennonite church, it was taught that a Christian should have an attitude of nonresistance, as shown by Jesus' words about turning the other cheek--this was one of the doctrines the Mennonite church was built around back in the 16th century. Now the Baptist church down the street taught that it was good and important to serve your country in the armed forces, but of course neither church was even going to *hint* that the other might be wrong. This created a paradox for me as a child: How could both these churches be right, even though they so clearly taught opposite things? And if there was no right or wrong doctrine regarding membership in the Army, why build a church around something the Bible doesn't even talk about? Thanks for putting up with my little story. Here's the point: If you're not going to have the conviction that what you believe in is *right*, why make it an issue at all? The Chicago Church of Christ doesn't have a stand on nonresistance, nor do we say a Christian should never drink a beer, or any grey areas like that. What we *do* have conviction on is things the Bible is (to us) quite plain about: baptism, discipleship, evangelism, knowledge of the Word, helping the poor. One of the major gripes of the Boston movement is "Hey, they don't accept everyone as Christians!!!" Well, its true, we don't. It's not because we *hate* people, it's that our convictions about what the Bible says won't be compromised. Jesus himself said that many who cry "Lord, Lord" will never enter the kingdom. And neither do we guarantee that having your name on the membership roll of a church in our movement keeps you a place in Heaven. Just understand this: Our beliefs regarding other churches are based on conviction, not pride. In closing, I'd like to say that I'm willing to discuss any questions or problems people have with the Boston movement provided the discussion remains via the newsgroup (not by mail) and provided it doesn't turn into a flame fest & every one remains rational (I'll do my best.) Art "By grace, my sight grows stronger, and I will not be a pawn for the Prince of Darkness any longer." -- Indigo Girls -- Arthur L. Miller | art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Workstation Lab Consultant | Northwestern University | NeXTmail: art@speedy.acns.nwu.edu [> we now have well over a decade to reflect on what is > the best and most effective way to evangelize the world. Because the > original churches had no such past, it was quite inevitable that they > would blow it now and then. But God keeps working in the hearts of those > who seek Him, and over time the movement has matured more and more. Am I the only one who thinks this sounds a bit odd? It's like nobody has ever tried to evangelize the world before, and 20 centuries of church history have just evaporated. no past? The Spirit will no doubt lead in the right direction. But why make His job harder than necessary? "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". (Santayana) --clh] From: Poindexter@vdle7.csc.ti.com (Allan Poindexter) Date: 25 Aug 91 02:47:28 GMT [Discussion of the "mainline" CoC position that the discipleship relationship between the leaders of the Boston churches constitutes a "papacy". - dex] >In essence: there is no pope. You get discipled by whoever is >available who helps you get closer to Christ. Good. I am glad to see that Kip is responsible to someone. I mentioned this distinction because it was a place where "mainline" and "Boston" differ. Since I don't believe in autonomy to begin with it is a non-issue with me except as regards the possible abuse of discipling relationship dealt with later. >>usually fall in the latter category. The leader of the Boston church in >>Dallas has been reported as saying he only knows of a very few true >>Christians (or disciples as they are fond of calling Christians) outside >>the Boston movement. > >Yep. This is the sort of attitude I think violates the admonitions in 1 Corinthians. Fortunately, those outside the Boston church will be judged by God in the end and not the Boston church. I am confident of my position before God. >There may be a church someone that still uses individual disciplers. >The churches I'm familiar with don't. The Dallas church seems to use these still. They don't seem to exercise as much authority as they once did though. >The problem with individual disciplers, I've been told, are twofold: >1) they're not really scriptural, 2) they can be very destructive if >misused. I'm not sure when you're quoting from, but I've heard there >were some serious abuses in the early 80's, enough to cause a >massive church-wide repentance (one of many--the last was over >caring for the poor when the Evangelist from London came over and >tore Orlando apart for what it was not doing to help the poor). THIS IS GREAT! This is exactly the kind of news I have been hoping to hear. I heartily agree with both reasons 1 and 2 that you give. I think that this structure, while not being a guarantee of no abuses, will be much less prone to abuses. [discussion of imitating disciplers - dex] >As for imitating personalities, we had a discussion about it. My >discipler pointed out that very little is mentioned of Jesus' >personality, so it isn't very important. QED: Be yourself, but >act like Jesus. This is may be an improvement over some of the earlier practices. I have copies of Boston documents which say "imitate your discipler in everything". >d) Been in several midnight Bible Studies when someone started > studying the Bible and didn't want to stop. We studied until > we dropped, slept, then continued until the person was baptized. I don't think any Boston person means anything harmful when they do this. Most of the time it probably isn't harmful. *But* I believe it hurts your movement as a whole. Late night activities like this are a common ploy of various cult movements to weaken a prospective members defenses. That is not to say that I have never been to a midnight service or that I think they should be prohibited. Indeed I have attended such services in "mainline" Protestant churches (PCUSA to be precise). It would seem to me though that a movement which has garnered a reputation of using cult methods would be well advised to assiduously avoid even the appearance of using them further especially with prospective members. I would also note that *most* prospective members that I have personal knowledge of here in Dallas have had their Bible Studies done after 11pm. There does seem to be a trend here although admittedly it may be local. >g) I'm glad Peter and Paul weren't like you. They lived to evangelize > the world, as we do. You misunderstand. I don't despise evangelism. I wish I could get all churches (well Christian ones anyway) to evangelize more. The objection is that you should not base your evaluation of spiritual health on the *results* of your evangelism. "Evangelism" comes from the Greek for "good news". An Evangelist is a reporter not a salesman. By all means evangelize but if you don't get any converts for a day or a month or a year it isn't necessarily because you have "hidden sin" or "lack of commitment". >h) Anyone can move anywhere they want, just as you can chop off your > hand and fling it far from your body if you want to. Neither > is advised. This is basically an outgrowth of the idea that no substantial number of people outside of the Boston Movement have eternal life. If that were correct it would be a good thing. Since it isn't correct it is a problem. >EVERYTHING the church does comes from scripture, is not opposed >to scripture, or gets corrected if in error. I have noticed that "Boston" seems more pliable than the mainline CoC and is more willing to take a look at itself. It is a factor that gives me optimism about the Boston Movement's future. >[Thanks. When coupled with other responses from people involved in >these churches, it sounds to me like the original criticisms were >probably justified, but there have been significant changes to deal >with them. The use of group discipleship seems to me like the most >important of the changes. Do you know whether this is being used in >all of the churches that were originally allied with the Boston >Church? We got one response from a member of one of those churches >who claimed that no specific kind of discipleship was being done at >all. --clh] As I said earlier the Dallas church seems to still be using individual disciplers at least as recently as three months ago and I have known personally of some things that have been listed as "abuses" that have occurred in the last 3-9 months. My personal experience does not include any of the more serious abuses though and the individual disciplers here do not seem to exercise as much power over their charges as disciplers in other areas have been reported to have. I am very encouraged by the developments in see in the Boston movement. I said in my first post that the movement seemed to be splitting. Another possible interpretation of that situation may be that it is undergoing *rapid* change. I still think there are some basic cautions. They do need to drop their confusion of discipleship and eternal life. This still plays a destructive role in their beliefs. Many of them also suffer from a sort of cultural amnesia about things related to Christianity. They seem to believe that the Boston movement is "something new under the sun". Many seem unaware that many of the things they do have been done many times before. dex Date: Fri, 20 Sep 91 11:26:53 EDT Date: Fri, 20 Sep 91 11:26:53 EDT From: bjmiller@bashful.phy.duke.edu (Brian Miller) Subject: Re: coc,b ppr I wrote my paper 2nd term two years ago. I believe that the church has a new ACTS STUDY SERIES, although I do not have a copy of it. The Triangle Church of Christ (Duke version) still uses one on one discipleship. I imagine that younger churches use more traditional techniques until the publicity on them builds. Thanks, Brian 18-Sep-92 20:07:43-GMT,45088;000000000001 Received: from gate.oxy.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15453; Fri, 18 Sep 92 16:06:06 EDT Received: by gate.oxy.edu (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA24005; Fri, 18 Sep 92 13:05:53 PDT Subject: paper this guy wrote on the church of christ for a thesis From: servant@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) To: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Message-Id: <236642@tiger.oxy.edu> Date: 18 Sep 92 12:24:44 PST Status: O Date: Wed, 18 Sep 91 13:12:00 -0400 From: bjmiller@phy.duke.edu (Brian Miller) Subject: BCC paper Written: Winter, 1989 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; ..."But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries, and lengthen the tassels of their garments. And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi." "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves..." "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisees, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also." (Matthew 23:1-26) Introduction Throughout the ages the religious views of individuals have clashed with the views of society. In the first century, the early Christians refused to worship the Roman emperor, resulting in terrible persecution. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Christians persecuted the Jews for not accepting the established religion. Even today in America, people criticize and look down upon or even judge others with differing views. The liberal Protestant will look at the Southern Baptist with contempt for his close-minded interpretation of Christianity and judgmental attitude toward other denominations; the Southern Baptist will look at Catholics as superstitious misguided remnants of a dark forgotten time. However, few groups in the United States have received as much criticism as the Boston Church of Christ (BCC). Ex-members report of being brainwashed into turning away from their family and friends and not being allowed to think while in the Church. Most mainline denominations who have studied the church classify it as a "dangerous cult". In my report I hope to address many of the complaints against the church. When undertaking this project to report on the beliefs and practices of the BCC, I understood the difficulty of objectively studying such a controversial organization; however, I did not expect that my own views and perceptions of Christianity would be challenged so much. I also did not expect my research to interest so many people both inside and outside of the BCC. I will attempt to accurately describe the church's history, beliefs, and practices and discuss the allegations that the church has taken control of the lives of its members, programmed them to believe and act according to the church's mandates, and has taught the members to use trickery and deception to "brainwash" unsuspecting prey into joining the church. I will describe how closely the BCC fits the description of a "cult" and how closely "cults" fit their stereotypical image. Finally, I will discuss the validity of the criticisms of the BCC by Christians both inside and outside the mainline Churches of Christ. I will primarily keep the perspective of the more conservative Christian branches for several reasons: 1) The conservative churches and the BCC have a common absolute basis for discussion, the inspired teachings of the Bible. Comparing the BCC to more liberal churches would touch upon such complex and controversial issues as Biblical infallibility. 2) The conservative churches have a fairly uniform set of teachings compared to the full range of doctrines and practices encompassing all the Christian churches. 3) Finally, because of my own religious background, I best understand conservative Christian thought. However, before one can properly address these topics, one has to understand that the world of religious thought is not a realm of discussion, compromise, or opinion but of right and wrong, good and evil, and of absolute truth. Religious convictions often take precedence over society's teachings and perspectives. For instance, the concern for the eternal salvation of a person's soul can override society's pluralistic mandates on tolerance of other peoples' religious views and drive a person to "push" his faith onto a sometimes unwilling candidate. To the religious person, the goal of leading himself and others to eternal happiness can far exceed such immediate goals as social acceptance and a successful career. Background History of the Mainline Churches of Christ Many of the fundamental doctrines of the BCC originate from the teachings of an eighteenth century reformer named Alexander Campbell who learned the Reformed distrust of historical tradition and accretions in every aspect of the church life from his Presbyterian background. Like many "reformers" Campbell sought to reestablish the patterns of primitive Christianity as he perceived them. He looked entirely to the New Testament for the New Dispensation or New Testament "law" for Christian living and worship. He even believed that practices not mentioned in the Bible, such as the use of musical instruments and the formation of missionary societies, should be removed from the church. However, as a student of John Locke, natural law ideology emerged in his theology. He understood faith as the mind's assent to the proper beliefs, an idea completely foreign to Jewish thought. He also viewed baptism not as a gift of grace or a symbol but as a decisive compliance of Jesus' command necessary for the "washing away of sins." Walter Scott, a very influential Scotsman, helped crystallize Campbell's theology in 1827 into five simple conceptions: 1. Faith consists of accepting the view, which Scott called the "golden oracle", that "Jesus is the Christ". 2. If the faith is genuine, repentance naturally follows motivated by Christ's promises. 3. Baptism for the forgiveness of sins is the obedient response to Christ's command and makes one's commitment complete. 4. The forgiveness of sins is the fulfillment of God's promise, as are 5. The gift of the Holy Spirit and eternal life. The Baptist church along with other demoninations condemned the "Disciples" denomination, which resulted from Campbell's and Scott's teachings, on six points: 1. The "Disciples" distinguish sharply between the Old and New Covenants and hence abolish the Old Testament law. 2. They believe that conversion takes place through the profession alone without any direct operation of the Holy Spirit; "faith" and "repentance" in their sense constitute regeneration. 3. They believe baptism should be administered on profession of belief that Jesus is the Christ, without any consent or examination by the church. 4. They believe that man's obedience alone can bring upon a person God's electing grace, since baptism brings about the forgiveness of sins and gift of the Spirit. 5. They believe that none have a special call to the ministry. 6. They believe that the Christianity of the New Testament is simple and clear, with no element of mystery, thus eliminating most creeds along with other traditions. The mainline Churches of Christ grew out of the Disciples movement nearly a century later. They felt that they were the only true restorers of the New Testament church, since they were the only true followers of Alexander Campbell. They continued to oppose missionary societies and musical instruments and perpetuated Campbell's doctrines. Background History of the BCC The story behind the BCC begins in Gainesville, Florida, with the Crossroads Church of Christ and a man named Chuck Lucas, who worked as a campus minister at the University of Florida. He developed the practice of assigning new students "discipling partners" who would pray with a new student each week, discuss scripture, and challenge the new student to conform his life to the teachings of scripture and to evangelize students on the campus. The older discipling partner would have complete authority over the younger student, who needed to confess his sins to the discipler. The discipleship system became part of the Multiplying Ministries program which included evangelistic bible studies and extensive proselytizing. This new system proved highly effective. Within a year nearly a hundred students joined the church, one of whom was Kip McKean. Lucas personally discipled Kip when he was a University student around '79. After Kip graduated, he went to several college campuses and introduced the Multiplying Ministries program with great success and at times great criticism. Eventually, the Lexington Church of Christ heard of Kip's exploits and invited him to work with them to revive their dying church. Kip initiated the Multiplying Ministries plan, which caused the church to grow at an exponential rate. Kip eventually became the main authority and replaced all elders of the church who did not fully cooperate with* his plans. When the church outgrew the Lexington building, it moved to Boston and became the Boston Church of Christ. Kip invited ministers from other Churches of Christ to train in the Boston Church, while Boston ministers would replace their positions. This process known as "rebuilding" perpetuated the Multiplying Ministries plan to other churches. As the Boston Church of Christ grew, it became more and more exclusive until it only considered members of churches who practice the Multiplying Ministries plan true Christians. Chuck Lucas eventually resigned from his position in the Crossroads Church of Christ and apologized for the mistakes he had made. The Crossroads Church discontinued the Multiplying Ministries plan and refused to be "rebuilt" by the Boston church. Now the Boston Church no longer even considers the members of Crossroads or of other noncooperating Churches of Christ as heirs to eternal life. Multiplying Ministries and the Master Plan of Evangelism Eventually, Kip McKean incorporated the Multiplying Ministries into a plan for world evangelism partially drawing from Robert Coleman's book, The Master Plan of Evangelism. Kip's plan takes on the form of a hierarchical structure with four main types of churches: 1. Pillar Churches - Churches established in the largest population centers of the world. These churches' spheres of influence can cover several countries. Upon these "pillar" churches, the world brotherhood will be built. 2. Capitol City Churches - Churches established in the capital cities of countries. 3. Small City Churches - Churches established in towns and smaller cities. Usually this is where people are more difficult to evangelize because of deep roots of tradition, more than in major cities. 4. Countryside Churches - Churches built among the people in the regions around small cities and would include what missionologists call the "hidden peoples." First, missionaries would establish Pillar Churches of multiplying disciples in the major cities such as New York, London, and Hong Kong. After becoming established, the Pillar Churches would send teams to the capital cities under their influence to start City Churches. After the City Churches discipled leaders, these people would start Small City Churches in all the cities of the nation. These churches would then plant the Countryside Churches which would reach all the people in the surrounding countryside. The hierarchical structure continues down to the newest members. Kip McKean resides at the top of the pyramid as the missionary evangelist who like Paul travels from city to city starting new churches. Kip disciples a handful of Lead Evangelists, each of whom meet with the elders of the churches in their regions which can cover entire continents. The elders control individual churches and personally disciple sector leaders. The pyramid continues with zone leaders, house church leaders, bible talk leaders, and finally with older members discipling younger members of the church. Each person must submit to the authority of the people above him. The Multiplying Ministries plan also specifically dictates the methods of recruitment. A member of the church invites a classmate, fellow living group member, or a stranger walking down the hall to a Bible talk. The Bible talk, designed for invited guests, covers some basic principles of Christianity, free from theological discourse or difficult doctrines to understand or accept. The members of the Bible talk immediately befriend the perspective convert and invite him to other activities. As the perspective convert becomes more familiar with the church members, they encourage him to be more open with his thoughts and feelings and to study the Bible with one of the church members assigned to be his discipling partner. The discipler teaches him more church doctrine and encourages him to be open with him about his concerns, weaknesses, and sins. Soon, the discipler encourages him to invite people to church activities. After the perspective convert learns the fundamentals of church doctrine, he is asked to be baptized for the forgiveness of his sins. By this point he either becomes baptized and a full member of the church or leaves, breaking nearly all ties with the church members. If he decides to stay, he also learns to submit to the authority of those above him and attempts to bring as many people into the church as possible. Teachings of the Church During a perspective convert's recruitment before he is baptized, he is taught by his discipler or in a larger group a series of lessons from a First Principles class which I will outline: 1st lesson - The Word of God This study most closely resembles any conservative sunday school * class. A few verses such as "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work," (II Timothy 3:16-17) are used to justify accepting the Bible as the only true authority by which all teaching and practices are to be judged. However, this lesson also states that "there is no private interpretation of the Bible", a * teaching that can limit a person's ability to judge if teachings from the church contradict scripture. 2nd lesson - The coming of the kingdom This study teaches that the kingdom of God is the church * established by the apostles and continued by the true Christian churches today, which as mentioned earlier are only Kip's churches. This study draws from several verses such as "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power," (Mark 9:1) to prove that the kingdom of God would be established in just a few years. The study further shows how predictions made from the gospels were fulfilled by the church described in the book of Acts. 3rd and 4th lessons - Light and Darkness * Resembling most conservative doctrines, the first part begins by describing how everyone has separated themselves from God by their sin and how only faith in Jesus can save a man from God's judgement. However, the study quickly departs from conservative theology by claiming that full immersion water baptism is the process by which sins are forgiven and a person is brought "out of darkness into light": "And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.' " In addition, unlike most conservative churches which stress that a new Christian undergoes a life long sanctifying process gradually conforming his life into the image of Christ's and that noone can live a life completely free of sin, this lesson teaches that after baptism, a new Christian should only live in the light completely free from sins. The BCC usually takes a much * stronger stand on sin questioning the salvation of members who sin, while conservative churches more often will consider at times even serious sins as only a temporary setback in a Christian's life. These studies conclude by denouncing doctrines from other churches such as infant baptism, believers baptism, and salvation before baptism. Finally, this lesson outlines the process of salvation resembling that interpreted by Campbell nearly two centuries earlier: Hear (the message of Christ), Believe, Repent, Confess (that Jesus is Lord), and be baptized. 5th and 6th lessons - Baptism with and Gifts of the Holy Spirit * These lessons teach that the gifts of the Holy Spirit could only be passed onto people by the apostles and that the gifts are not present today: "but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease." (1 Corinthians 13:8) These lessons are used mainly to discredit the Charismatic churches. 7th lesson - The Church * This lesson teaches that only one unified Christian church (BCC) without any form of division should exist. The lesson then criticizes other denominations for having been started by men instead of Christ. Obviously, the fact that Campbell and Scott started the movement that produced the Churches of Christ was not mentioned. The lesson concludes by emphasizing the importance of becoming involved with the church and its members and faithfully attending all services: "And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some." (Hebrews 10:23-25) 8th lesson: Discipleship * This section presents some of the most distinctive teachings of the BCC. Beginning with the common teachings of counting the cost before becoming a Christian and dying to self, the lesson continues by teaching that all Christians must be disciples and also make new disciples. In addition, the promise of persecution for true believers is mentioned. After these studies, the discipler will ask the perspective convert to be baptized. The next four sections are follow up lessons for the baptized convert. They help to firmly establish the discipling relationship, encouraging openness, commitment, and discipline. Evangelism and the expectation of persecution are also continuously stressed. Overview All the teachings of the church support Kip McKean's vision for evangelizing the world. Every new convert believes that the BCC is the true church of God and that the emphasis in the Bible on seeking the kingdom of God first refers to seeking to serve and advance the BCC. They dedicate their time, energy, and resources to achieving this goal. They submit to the direction of their superiors and live strictly in accordance to the guidelines sent down before them. However, how similar are these teachings and practices to those of the new testament church? And, how has the BCC earned their reputation of being a "cult"? Biblical Criticisms The BCC claims to follow the Bible, the whole Bible (at least all of the New Testament), and nothing but the Bible. In addition, the members of the church believe that they and only they have recreated the New Testament church to the best of their abilities. However, members both inside and outside of the mainline Churches of Christ strongly disagree with these assertions. They claim that the BCC often takes verses from the Bible grossly out of context and distorts their meaning, even to the point of contradicting other very clear passages in the scriptures, to support Kip McKean's personal vision for world evangelism. Water Baptism Most conservative Christians find the church's view on the necessity of water baptism for salvation the most obvious departure from standard Christian doctrine. The BCC sights passages such as "Or do you now know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore, we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life," (Romans 6:3-4) to illustrate how baptism is literally sharing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. They believe that 1 Peter 3:21, "And corresponding to that (the water from the flood that saved Noah), baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," clearly states that water baptism saves. However, the conservative Christian would argue that this verse is stating that the act of being dunked with water does not save a person, but simply the decision to turn toward God and that the act of water baptism is simply a visible yet inessential sign of this decision. The conservative Christian would then point out that the Romans passage was removed from the context of Paul criticizing the Christians for believing that works * could save a person instead of faith alone. Finally, the conservative Christian would criticize the BCC for ignoring several other passages that clearly state or show that faith alone assures salvation such as "...whoever believes in Him (Jesus) should not perish, but have eternal * life." (John 3:16) In addition, when Peter spread the gospel to the gentiles, they received the Holy Spirit, the promise to the Christians, * before they were baptized. (Acts 11) Complete repentance The next point of contention that usually surfaces in doctrinal confrontations with the BCC deals with a new Christian's freedom from sin. The BCC teaches that a Christian's life must be free from sin, drawing from numerous passages describing how Christians must no longer act unrighteously, and that a Chrsitian can lose his salvation from sin, a doctrine completely contrary to much of conservative thought. The conservative Christian, on the other hand, more often believes that a person's profession of faith in Christ begins a gradual process, that could last a lifetime, of conforming to the image of Christ. The conservative Christian would again sight passages promising salvation to whoever believes in Jesus and passages illustrating that Christians continuously do sin and need only confess their sins for forgiveness without fear of losing their salvation under any circumstances: "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the * truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleans us of all unrighteousness." (1 John 8-9) Kingdom of God Most Christians would agree that when Jesus describes the kingdom of God, he is referring to his second coming as much as referring to the establishment of the Christian church, as illustrated by the many lengthy passages describing how when the kingdom of God draws near, wars and famines and natural disasters would precede Jesus' coming in glory to judge the living and the dead. In addition, even the passages referring to the present concentrate more on a Christian's personal relationship with God more than with a specific body of believers. Discipleship The BCC's teaching that every true Christians must be an obedient disciple and make new disciples to a large extent stems from Jesus' allegory about bearing fruit: "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit ... Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matthew 7:17-19) However, the Conservative Christian would argue that bearing fruit has a much more encompassing meaning than simply bringing people into the Christian church. For instance, John the Baptist spoke of bearing the fruit of repentance, and Paul often wrote of the fruit of the Spirit such as joy, peace, and kindness. In addition, the New Testament describes a disciple as someone who follows Jesus' teachings, not someone who submits to the mandates of a more mature Christian. Authority The BCC teaches that a "disciple must submit to and obey the human discipler in "matters of opinion unless what is asked of him/her violates his/her conscience." The elders state that since all of a person's possessions belong to the kingdom (church) and since the elders are the overseers of the church, they have the right to dictate how a person must use his possessions. They also use the argument that since Jesus told a rich man to sell his possession, they should have the right to do so also. In addition, they often quote Hebrews 13:17, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." However, as the house church leader points out in his letter, the word persuaded is a better translation from the original Greek than obey, and he observes that this verse could be related to Hebrews 13:7 which states, "Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you." Ron Gholston also mentions that neither Jesus nor the apostles taught that Christians should place themselves in authority over other Christians. Instead Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave--just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28) Ron Gholston also sights several passages where the apostles recognized the individuals right to judge for himself what God's will is for him. For instance, Peter says to two Christians in Acts 5:4 who sold their possessions for the church, "Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?" Paul also tells the Christians to be convinced in their own minds what is right. (Romans 14:5) Description of a Cult Clearly, most Christian groups have severe criticisms of the BCC's teachings, but most churches have severe criticisms for other church's teachings. Why has the Christian community reacted so strongly against the BCC. Before answering this question, I should discuss the common practices of groups who fit under the description of a "cult." A cult by definition is an organized set of beliefs and rituals surrounding some object of worship. All religions begin as cults. The organization is extremely simple, simply a charismatic leader and his band of followers without bureaucracy, priesthood, or scriptures. A cult strives to start a radically new religious tradition, existing in conflict with what it regards as a corrupt world. Clearly, neither the BCC nor any other common "cults" fit into this category. As shown the BCC has a very well organized structure and is simply a somewhat radical branch of Christianity. However, I shall use the word "cult" to describe religious groups, such as the unification church, who allegedly use tactics of "brainwashing" and "deception". Thought Reform The term "brainwashing" used to describe the practices of cults conjures up images of mindless zombies walking around helpless to disobey the whims of some insidious leader. However, the tactics used by most cults simply exploit natural sociological tendencies. The Chinese developed the system of "thought reform" which most cults use today to adjust the attitudes of the people to accept Moist communist ideology. The procedure has three main steps: 1. Group Identification. The group leaders create a cordial atmosphere * acting like older, wiser camp counselors. They encourage visitors to be open in revealing their feelings and questions about propaganda lectures that emphasize the corruptness of the past and the expectations of citizenship under Maoist communism. 2. The Period of Emotional Conflict. The group leaders encourage * self-criticisms, introspective essays, confessions, and testimonies of past "sins" against the group to be presented in front of the group. The leader informally singled out more "progressive" members to foster peer pressure on the others to demand self-criticisms and to reward ideological conformity with approval and acceptance. 3. Submission and Rebirth. Group members prepare autobiographies * describing their new "enlightened" Marxist perspectives, which are submitted to the group and to communist party members until everyone is satisfied that each individual was ideologically sound. Social psychologists have attributed the effectiveness of these tactics to people's psychological need to perceive continuity between their actions and beliefs and people's tendency to perform actions that produce approval from their social environment and eliminate actions that do not. Cults use these very principles in several of their most effective techniques: "Hooks" and "Plants" * Nearly every salesman, politician, and cult makes use of hooks or "openings" to attract their customers or simply to entice them to consider their message seriously. For instance, a cult member will usually invite a prospective convert to a picnic or a general discussion of the problems in the world and the need for some universal answer. During these activities members of the organization never discuss any of their beliefs that people might find hard to accept. Instead, after the presentation of some dramatic appealing message, that may appeal to an idealistic youth who is concerned about the world and wishes to help improve it, members of the group individually talk with guests probing for hooks, such as interests, hobbies, or information about their backgrounds, which they can dwell on and flatter the guests with to attract them to the group. Rather than weed out unlikely candidates, everyone is encouraged to learn more about the organization. Many cults, as well as politicians and salesmen, use people known as plants who act like regular members of a group but who premeditatedly reinforce the message of a speaker or foster group discussion. For instance, a cult gathering usually contains more members than guests. The members give emotional testimonies, laugh the loudest at jokes, and applaud the speakers. These actions can create subtle pressure on a guest to cheer, clap and laugh with the group. Such participation in the group produces subtle attitude changes in favor of the message. "Love-Bombing" * After a prospective convert attends a few activities, his contact invites him to a retreat, seminar, or weekend-outing where the most intensive indoctrination takes place. The members of the group continue to use hooks and plants but with the added tactic of love