English Español Translate

RightCyberUp HOME search comment

Is the International Church of Christ a Cult? (ICC, ICOC)

Could it be that the International Churches of Christ (ICC) – a group with lofty goals and tens of thousands of sincere, well-intentioned members – is a cult? In this section, we synthesize the material from previous sections and statistical data to answer this question.

We will find that the ICC seems to dramatically fit to the criteria of a destructive cult.

Contents

• Intro
• A Working Definition of a Cult
  • Is the International Churches of Christ authoritarian in its power structure? Does the group have a pyramid-shaped structure with absolute authority at the top?
  • Is the ICC totalitarian in its control of members’ behavior?
  • Does the ICC have a double set of ethics?
  • Does the ICC have self-appointed leaders, claiming to have a special mission in life?
  • Does the ICC promote physical and/or psychological isolation from society?
  • Does the ICC use deception in recruitment and/or fundraising?
  • Does the ICC use thought reform/mind control techniques?
  • Conclusion
• Can ICC Cultic Abuse be Measured?
• ICC Myths about Cults
• Notes

A Working Definition of a Cult

To determine if the ICC or any group is a cult, we must start with a fair and precise definition of what a “cult” is. (Note: calling a group a “cult” is not a value judgement about the group or the people in it. A psychological model of a “cult” looks to the behaviors of the group, not its beliefs or the sincerity of its members.)

One excellent definition of a destructive cult comes from the support organization reFOCUS (see Figure 1). This definition is broad enough to include all types of cults (religious, political, therapy/self-improvement, business, etc), but narrow enough to exclude non-abusive groups.

Figure 1: reFOCUS pamphlet’s definition a cult

A Cult:

...is authoritarian in power structure – has a pyramid-shaped structure with absolute authority at the top

... is totalitarian in its control of the behavior of members

...tends to have a double set of ethics: one for the leader and another for members; one for those inside the group and another for dealing with outsiders

...has self-appointed leaders, claiming to have a special mission in life

...promotes physical and/or psychological isolation from society; has an “it’s us against the world” mentality

...uses deception in recruitment and/or fundraising

...uses thought reform techniques (1)

Source: reFOCUS pamphlet, Flagler Beach, FL, 1999.

We will compare these reFOCUS criteria one by one with the ICC, using references to other RightCyberUp articles plus a study by psychologist Michael Langone that surveyed former ICC members’ experiences.

Back to Contents

Is the International Churches of Christ authoritarian in its power structure? Does the group have a pyramid-shaped structure with absolute authority at the top?

We have seen much evidence of the ICC’s pyramid-shaped, authoritarian power structure:

• All ICC members are assigned a “discipleship partner” to whom they report. Each “discipleship partner,” in turn, has a discipler, and so on, all they way up to the top leaders (see Mandatory, Assigned One-Over-One Discipling)

• The ICC’s leadership structure forms a true pyramid, with each level having fewer leaders who hold more power (see ICC Leadership Structure)

• ICC founder McKean has acknowledged that the ICC has a “vertical authority” with a “hierarchy” and “lines of authority” (see Mandatory, Assigned One-Over-One Discipling)

Michael Langone’s study of former members’ experiences seems to reveal authoritarianism in the ICC: 93% of former members said that members are told to trust the group and its leaders over their own thoughts and opinions 88% said that members are told to subordinate themselves (will, behavior, needs and desires) to the group’s leadership in order to please God 88% said members are told that to question, criticize, disobey or distrust leaders is to question, criticize, disobey or distrust God 78% said members are admonished/rebuked for making a decision without seeking advice from their disciplers, and 95% said that not seeking/following advice meant having a bad attitude, bad heart, etc. (2) (figures rounded to nearest whole percent)

Back to Contents

Is the ICC totalitarian in its control of members’ behavior?

We have seen the ICC’s tendency toward domineering control of members’ behavior:

• control of dating relationships: supervision over whom members can date or go steady with, discipling partners’ expectation that members report details of dates, group-determined limitations on physical contact on dates, the breaking off of relationships by ICC leadership and pressure from the group to be dating in the first place (see Control of Dating Relationships)

• control of the marriage relationship, sometimes including spouses reporting on one another (see Marriage)

• expecting members to obey “advice” (see Advice is just Advice?)

• expecting members to confess all sins to make sure they are behaving desirably (see Mandatory Confession)

• control and monitoring of member financial donations (see Enforced Tithing)

• requiring attendance to several ICC events per week (see Mandatory Attendance)

• expecting members to subjugate any personal ambitions to the needs and wants of the group (see Dying to Self?)

• expecting members to turn down jobs when unfavorable to the group (see Careers)

• expecting members to make bringing in new group members their primary focus (see Evangelism by Compulsion)

• expecting members to change personality, hairstyle, dress, and anything else that could make a person “unrelatable” and less effective at bringing in other members (see Becoming all things to all people)

Langone’s study gives further evidence of behavioral control in the ICC: 100% of former members said members are encouraged to imitate their disciplers – with 83% saying members are chastised if they fail to imitate. 95% said members are told that they must confess their sins to their disciplers 83% said members are told they should personally sacrifice in order to give money to the group 50% of members were at least once strongly encouraged to date or not to date a specific person 85% of former members said members are told they should sleep less (3) (figures rounded to nearest whole percent)

Back to Contents

Does the ICC have a double set of ethics?

The ICC fosters double standards between insiders (people inside the group) and outsiders:

• Whereas members are supposed to be “open” with one another about everything, when recruiting outsiders there is no such responsibility to be open. Instead, members are often expected to conceal their true agenda from non-members to lead them toward “the truth” (see Non-informed Consent)

• deceit is defined differently for ICC teens than it is for ICC adults interacting with “the world” (see A Definition of Deceit and Lying and Church Plantings)

• ICC members can use partial disclosure when recruiting, but parents are criticized for doing the same thing when setting up an exit counseling (see Double Standards and the Golden Rule)

• the group has sued critics for allegedly misrepresenting the ICC, yet it has misrepresented a major court case to members (see Singapore Lawsuit)

• the group complains it is treated unfairly by the media, yet it misrepresents what the media has said about the ICC (see ICC Attacks on the Media)

• the ICC is allowed to change its doctrine over time (see Changing Tunes articles), but the perceived false teachings of other religious groups are viewed to automatically damn them

• sincere religious individuals outside the organization are assumed to be “sincere but sincerely wrong,” but the sincerity of ICC members/leaders is usually seen to automatically justify their actions (see Double Standards and the Golden Rule)

In other examples of ICC double standards, leaders often seem governed by a different set of ethical standards than rank-and-file members:

• members’ progress, faults and weaknesses may be discussed at leaders-only meetings, but when members speak critically about leaders it is considered “gossip,” “slander” or “divisiveness” (see Double Standards and the Golden Rule)

• members can’t read the most negative material but leaders can (see Inoculation Against Criticism)

• members can’t speak to marked people, but leaders can (see Marking)

• members are expected to be more open about their personal finances than is the group (see “Our books are open”)

• members are expected to sacrifice financially, while some collect large salaries incur significant travel expenses or live in expensive homes – using the same money sacrificially contributed by members (see ICC Finances articles)

Back to Contents

Does the ICC have self-appointed leaders, claiming to have a special mission in life?

• ICC founder Kip McKean proclaimed himself to be “God’s man,” executing God’s plan in the modern day (see God’s Man)

• McKean said that God had put a plan on his heart to evangelize the world in one generation (see God’s Man)

• McKean was self appointed: although he was initially invited in 1979 to be the evangelist at a small Massachusetts church, McKean was never elected as leader of the movement. Rather, he consolidated power, claiming to be God’s elect (see Thirty would-be disciples in Boston)

• McKean chose the World Sector Leaders who served beneath him; the World Sector Leaders did not appoint McKean (see God’s Man)

• McKean’s senior leaders – appointed to their positions by McKean – endorsed the idea that God worked through McKean to lead “God’s movement” (see God’s Man)

• McKean claimed to be “restoring” the New Testament church and New Testament doctrine (see God’s Man) – even though many of his doctrines and practices cannot be found nor reasonably inferred from the Bible

• the proclaimed mission of McKean and the World Sector Leaders was to complete the Great Commission of Jesus Christ in a single generation (see The Great Quota)

Langone’s former-member research also shows that the ICC and its leaders teach that they play a special role in humankind: 98% said members are told that this movement is the Kingdom of God. 70% said members are told the group’s leaders are special messengers of God – that they are blessed by God 85% said members are told the movement’s leaders are more godly than rank-and-file members (4) (figures rounded to nearest whole percent)

Back to Contents

Does the ICC promote physical and/or psychological isolation from society?

We have seen many ICC teachings and practices that contribute to the psychological isolation of members:

• teaching that all other groups have false teachings (see Denominationalism and False Doctrines)

• teaching that people outside the group are going to hell (see People Saved Outside the ICC)

• teaching prospective members a series of studies that systematically removes their options and alternatives until the only acceptable choice remaining is to become a member of the group (see Manipulated Commitment)

• asking members to make their closest friendships inside the group rather than outside it (see Influence and Use of Friendship)

• ingraining black-and-white thinking in members: everything outside the group is bad – the group alone is good (see Partiality)

• teaching that the solutions to problems like chemical addiction exist only within the group, and not giving people tools to conquer their addictions outside the group (see Chemical Recovery)

• teaching that leaving the group is leaving God (see Leaving the ICC is Leaving God?)

• teaching that people who leave will inevitably be worse off than before they joined the group (see Who’s the Dog?)

• teaching that bad things will happen to people who leave the group (see Is God Preoccupied with the ICC?)

• calling any outside criticism of the group persecution (see Is Criticism = Persecution?)

• warning members Satan wants to use their families against them (see Families)

• “marking” some of the people who are the most critical of the movement (see Marking)

Langone’s study finds additional evidence of psychological or physical isolation of ICC members from the rest of society: 95% said that people outside the group are regarded as “worldly” or “influenced by Satan” or “enemies of God” 90% said members are told that there are no other Christian churches outside the movement where salvation can be found 73% said members are strongly encouraged to move out of old living situations in order to live with members 73% said members are told that going home to visit family or spending time with friends outside the group could cause Satan to get a foothold, and 88% said that spending time with them outside recruiting efforts is not “seeking the Kingdom first” 55% said members are told that they shouldn’t read or watch media coverage of the group 80% said members are told they shouldn’t speak with former members (5) (figures rounded to nearest whole percent)

Back to Contents

Does the ICC use deception in recruitment and/or fundraising?

We have found many examples of apparent deception in the organization:

• friendship or the appearance of friendship is used to gain others’ involvement in the group (see Influence and Use of Friendship)

• leaders may encourage (or tolerate) the use of hidden agendas in invitations to group events (see Non-informed Consent)

• Bible Talks may have hidden agendas unknown to visitors (see Orchestrated Bible Talks)

• leaders claim the ICC is non-denominational, when really it fits any publicly accepted definition of a denomination (see We’re a non-denominational church)

• the group’s more controversial doctrine/practices are revealed through incremental disclosure – recruits are told only what they are “ready to know” at a given time (see Incremental Disclosure)

• recruits are asked during the initial studies to make small commitments to the group or its doctrines without being aware of the consequences of those commitments (see Manipulated Commitment)

• members are asked to join the organization without knowing what’s in the “fine print” (see ICC Hidden Costs)

• telling members they are free to leave, but when they actually try, then telling them they’re leaving God (see Free to Leave?)

• declaring that the group’s financial books are open, yet not fully answering questions about finances (see “Our books are open”)

• representing members’ typical financial sacrifice as 10% of income when in reality it may be much more (see Weekly Contribution and the 10% Myth)

• lies may be used when necessary to plant foreign churches (see Lying and Church Plantings)

• claiming that HOPE, the ICC’s charitable arm, is a separate organization, when in fact HOPE’s management and goals are intertwined with the ICC’s (see Does the ICC Use HOPE as a Front Group?)

• collecting HOPE funds from corporations and other non-ICC donors, but spending money on initiatives that indirectly benefit the ICC (see HOPE Fundraising)

• using HOPE as a front organization to aid in recruiting members (see Does the ICC Use HOPE as a Front Group?)

• allowing public figures to be deceived by not revealing HOPE’s connection to the ICC (see H.O.P.E.: Helping Our Publicity Efforts)

• claiming to be the “largest church” in several cities by counting its members differently than other groups – and counting members who live outside the metropolitan areas of these cities (see One Church, One City)

• promoting a myth that deprogramming and exit counseling are the same thing (see Exit Counseling = Deprogramming)

• propagating fallacies about the group, its past, and the criticisms of the group (see ICC Fallacies articles)

Langone’s study asked former members about their recruitment into the movement. Answers showed a strong disparity between what people were originally told as recruits, and what they later came to believe was true about the group: 70% were not told that the purpose of the individual Bible Studies was to get them baptized into the movement. Later, 90% of former members said this was the purpose of the Bible Studies. 53% of former members said they were not told that the Bible Talk to which they were invited was for the purpose of bringing new people into the movement. Later, 90% of former members believed this was the purpose of Bible Talks. 68% of former members said they were not told prior to consenting to do the individual Bible Studies that they would be required to have a discipler if they joined. Later, 100% of former members believed that disciplers were required. 70% of former members said they did not know that they had been openly discussed in leaders meetings and that people were assigned to be their friends and encourage them to become a member. Later, 95% of former members felt this was true. 88% were told the group was nondenominational 45% were not told that the local group to which they were invited was part of the Boston/ICC movement (figures rounded to nearest whole percent)

Back to Contents

Does the ICC use thought reform/mind control techniques?

• ICC practices and characteristics dramatically fit the BITE model of mind control (see Thought Reform/Mind Control in the ICC articles).

• researchers have found measurable evidence of personality change and psychological damage in the ICC (see Evidence from ICC-related Psychological Studies).

Back to Contents

Conclusion

By comparing the seven reFOCUS criteria to the International Churches of Christ, we see that the ICC can be classified as a destructive cult. Figure 2 summarizes the ICC vs. the reFOCUS criteria.

Figure 2: Summarizing the ICC vs. Destructive Cult Criteria

Destructive Cult Characteristic*	ICC
Authoritarian Power Structure, Pyramid-Shaped	Yes
Totalitarian in Control of Behavior	Yes
Double Set of Ethics	Yes
Self-Appointed Leaders Claiming Special Mission	Yes
Promotes Physical and/or Psychological Isolation	Yes
Deception in Recruitment and/or Fundraising	Yes
Uses Thought Reform/Mind Control Techniques	Yes

*Source: reFOCUS pamphlet, Flagler Beach, FL, 1999.

Back to Contents

Can ICC Cultic Abuse be Measured?

A more scientific method for identifying cults has been to use empirical measurement as a “measuring stick” for cultic abuse. Interestingly, one of the first groups studied in this way is the ICC.

Chambers, Langone, Dole & Grice created the Group Psychological Abuse (GPA) scale by asking former members of groups considered to be cults to rate characteristics of their groups. The researchers then used a technique called “factor analysis” to classify 28 components of group psychological abuse into four major areas: Compliance, Exploitation, Mind Control and Anxious Dependency. They came up with the following definition of a “cult”:

Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders. (6) [emphasis added]

Langone later gave the Group Psychological Abuse questionnaire to former Boston Church of Christ members, and to comparison groups of former Roman Catholics and former InterVarsity Christian Fellowship members. He found that “former Boston movement subjects rated their group significantly more abusive than did former Catholics or InterVarsity graduates.” (7) The Catholic and InterVarsity former members rated their groups on average as being substantially below the 84 GPA score that separates “abusive” from “non-abusive” ratings, while the two BCC groups gave average ratings of 105 and 108 (see Figure 3). According to the Group Psychological Abuse scale, the Boston Church of Christ was an abusive group, but InterVarsity and the Roman Catholic Church were not.

Figure 3: ICC vs. the Group Psychological Abuse (GPA) scale

In this study, the Boston Church of Christ also scored higher than the non-ICC groups on each of the four abuse sub-scales: Compliance, Exploitation, Mind Control and Anxious Dependency, showing that the BCC fit the researchers' empirically developed definition of a “cult.”

Back to Contents

ICC Myths about Cults

[Note: the ICC movement has been called a cult since its early history, but has always resisted the label. To see an examination of some ICC counter-arguments about being a cult, click here.]

Notes:

(1) reFOCUS pamphlet, Flagler Beach, FL, 1999.

(2) Michael Langone, An Investigation of a Reputedly Psychologically Abusive Group That Targets College Students, A Report to Boston University’s Danielsen Institute, April 26, 1996.

(3) Ibid.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Ibid.

(6) William Chambers, Michael Langone, Arthur Dole & James Grice, The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A Measure of the Varieties of Cultic Abuse, Cultic Studies Journal, 11(1), 1994.

(7) Langone, An Investigation…

Copyright © 2001 Dave Anderson. All rights reserved.