why I Left the ICOC or BCOC

This letter is to inform people why I have decided to no longer be a member of the BCOC and or ICOC, reasons for my departure are below.

I am persuaded that people don't need to be told how they constantly fall short of perfection and God's standards; they face this every day. What they need to know is that God wants a relationship with them and that he can work through their imperfections by his Spirit to accomplish his works in their lives anyway. In my opinion, this performance-orientation issue permeates the ICOC culture like toxic waste oozing from beneath the surface. It is everywhere, and it is insidious. Getting rid of it will not be easy or may never happen for those who have lived under it and perpetuated it for many years. How much harder it will be for those who do not see its shortcomings or are enthralled with its short-term results.
In my perspective, the BCOC ministry model is fundamentally leader-centric. Things revolve around a leader, especially region-leader evangelists. I believe the Scriptures testify more to a Jesus-centered and body-centered (or sheep-centered) model.
In a leader-centered model, things are seen from a leadership point of view, and the leader must make things happen. Along with this come the undesirable side effects of control, favoritism, reliance upon personality and hype to extend the abilities and limits of leadership. Under such a model, the members never really mature but remain spiritual children to the leadership. In the end, the sheep end up serving the leaders. Then the leaders are expected to live up to the position they're in, and resent it when people expect them to be perfect.
A sheep-centered model looks at things from the point of view of the sheep and how to develop and mobilize church resources for the benefit of the sheep. The ministry serves the sheep, for their benefit—just like Jesus who came for our benefit, not for his. A Jesus-centered model looks to him to make things happen. It is willing to accept his agenda, his timing, his working, and not the arbitrary goals of leaders who are eager to make a name for themselves or prove themselves worthy of greater roles in the church. A great example of this sort of a ministry is Paul's summary of his ministry in Colossians 1:24-2:3.
We've seen the failings of a leader-centric approach first-hand, yet the BCOC and ICOC still seems entrenched in a leader-centric ministry approach. Leaders are important, but we would do well to remember that they are usually referred to in Scripture as "servants." Does the name itself not suggest the model that should be used?
I believe God equips the entire body of Christ for the good of the body. He gives each of us different gifts, experiences, perspectives, personalities and circumstances in life for the good of the body. The body is to be equipped to minister to itself (Ephesians 4:12-13, 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, etc.). The body is also to be involved in shaping the values and direction of the church. This is seen in the early history of the apostolic church (Acts 6:1ff, 11:29, 15:22, etc.).
By contrast, our leader-centric model moves all significant discussion and decision-making to an oligarchy of elders and evangelists. One terrible side effect of this is that mature opinions and perspectives, needed for the health of the body but possessed by those not in the inner circle, are cast aside instead of being integrated into the values of the church. There are other detrimental side effects to this approach, including the lack of accountability.
One would think that with all of the issues facing the church in the last few years, it would be an ideal time to appoint more elders, involve the deacons, and seek wisdom from all over the body of Christ, especially the more mature and experienced members. The ICOC is a very diverse body that God has equipped with many great hearted and talented people for the benefit of the body. I'm not talking about a democracy; there is a place for leaders making decisions. But the way we or they do things suggests that the leaders think that wisdom only resides in themselves and others they consider worthy, but not the body as a whole. I strongly disagree with this approach.

I feel the message being communicated to members with differing opinions and perspectives is, "This is the way it is going to be. If you don't like it, leave." I just don't see that spirit in Acts 6. Biblical unity is not reached by marginalizing those who disagree, or by telling everyone to agree with the leaders. Yet this is the only sort of unity of which we seem to be capable, as those with valid Scriptural positions contrary to the leadership are expected to conform (a warped concept of "being united"), don't talk about it, or else be marginalized. In the end, the church throws away something it desperately needs.
Two-way conversations in small groups can be beneficial. However, the end result of this change is that the smaller meetings still leave people isolated and uninformed about what's going on and what other people think. Acts 6 shows a church-wide problem, and church-wide involvement towards a solution. The current practice of the BCOC discourages healthy, beneficial discussion. Instead of things being done in the open, we now appear to have things going on behind closed doors again. Those who question what goes on can be told how "uninformed" and "isolated" they are, which of course makes them "incompetent" to contribute to the solution.
This huge step backwards in communications greatly troubles me. While the leadership and membership certainly "may" do things this way within the limits of Scripture, it opens the door to a host of negatives. A short list of these includes
favoritism, politics, nepotism uncertainty and speculation about why decisions were made, eliminating checks and balances, allowing the leadership opportunity to speak out of both sides of its mouth depending upon the audience, and the like. I do not consider keeping people in the dark about what is going on a healthy way to conduct the business of the church.
Another method that has been established to address some of these issues is the "open door policy"-- directly questioning the leadership, but privately. This may be well-intentioned and beneficial in many areas, but ends up serving as an intimidating gauntlet that discourages questioning in sensitive areas—the very areas that need the most openness and accountability. It allows those with questions to be identified and dealt with in an unhealthy way—having their motives questioned, challenging their hearts, loyalty, spirituality, and the like. Most people would rather have their questions unanswered than deal with that. Considering our history I do not think this is a healthy way to conduct the operations of the church. Isn't it easier to just be up-front and open about things?
I am gravely disappointed in the use of the pulpit in the BCOC (Doug A. Kevin Miller, Windham Shaw and others). Sermons generally consist of anecdotes, motivational-speaking hype ("you're guilty," "try harder") and stand-up comedy with a little Scripture
thrown in. Minor talks (e.g. welcomes, introductions to contribution, etc.) are frequently little "soapbox" sessions for people to express their pet ideas or support for the leadership. Opinions and anecdotes are given an official platform, regardless of how Scriptural they might be or how much they have to do with the matter at hand. Those with known differing opinions are not given these same opportunities.
Sermons seem to be valued if they are loud, fast-talking and energetic in their manner, regardless of the substance. Scripturally, speaking in the church is for the purpose of teaching and encouraging the saints in Christian doctrine (Titus 2:7, 2:15). I find BCOC sermons consistently a failure in this regard. Just like Kip's.
I realize that some people love the sermons the way they are. And I'm not saying preachers can't tell a joke or an anecdote now and then. But what are you going to do when you need real Scriptural answers to issues in your life? Are Gilt felt sermons, jokes and anecdotes going to provide a basis for your spiritual life in times of trial? Can hype last through the whole week until you get your next dose? A steady diet of spiritual Twinkies leads to spiritually unhealthy people in the end. I've seen this over the years, and it is still being perpetuated. It violates my conscience to witness this on a weekly basis.
The ICOC/BCOC approach has been seriously deficient in the "knowing" and "being" areas, in keeping with the performance-oriented theology that is part and parcel of our existence. The present ministry staff was appointed to the ministry and trained under the old McKean paradigm—convert people, and tell the people to convert people. Whenever a problem comes up, baptize your way out of it. This is what was taught. They were indoctrinated in it over a span of many years, just as many of us were.
While evangelism and perseverance are necessary and beneficial, there is far more to spiritual leadership than controlling the environment, generating enthusiasm and pushing performance. In the important areas of knowledge of God (Colossians 1:10) and personal spiritual development (1 Timothy 4:7, 2 Peter 1:3-7), we have been seriously deficient. The staff cannot lead where they have not been. A weekend-training class here and there, while potentially helpful in exposing the brothers to new ideas, isn't going to get the job done, either—especially if these are conducted by others with the same performance-oriented legacy. These men have been indoctrinated in the old paradigm for years and aren't going to undo that in a few weekends a year. They may be sincere and want to do what is right—but they are groping for direction and are ill equipped for the task at hand. And more importantly—where is this needed training going to come from?
It is natural to love and defend one's leaders, in spite of their deficiencies. We all have deficiencies, and I am not graceless towards them, but for a church that relies upon leadership as much as the ICOC does, and faces the problems it faces, it must have leadership suitable to the task at hand. This is not about love for leaders as individuals; it is about what "knowing and being" is needed to care for the sheep of the BCOC.

Boston Campus ministry
I think the saddest most disturbing and depressing thing is the state of the Boston Campus ministry. It's amazing to me how this group of leader's uses and abuses the young men and woman of their ministry by promising dreams of leading churches and being part of the paid staff, even though some of kids are failing school do to the fact of the warped preaching of seeking first the kingdom lies that get's spoon or forced fed to these kids. I have seen first hand the harsh treatment of the young men, these so called leaders spiritually abuse. They abuse them by false promises and lies of a legalistic self righteous life style with out the kids even knowing it. They dangle the opportunity (like an owner dangling a treat to his dog) to lead songs, do a welcome, share about communion or so called preaching the word at a mid week gathering. Then the leader promises these kids about one day being in the ministry or paid staff. When in reality most of these kids have never been serious about reading the word of God or even about having a true relationship with God other than the legalistic Christianity that they came to understand or learned from there parents and the church. It's even sadder when a young man no longer wants a relationship with his God because of the spiritual abuse caused by these so called hand pick leaders of God. When a leader abuses people as much as this campus leader abuses people and continues to get away with it, do to the fact that he is connected to the lead elder of the Boston church by who he married (that in it's self should be investigated more than the miss use of funds) is even more depressing to me. This cult cycle will never end unless God does what he did when the Kriete letter came out. I pray that the Lord Jesus Christ brings this cult down to the foundation of its false teachings and warped leadership. This is the only way it will come to an end and then we can truly say
"to God be the Glory"
"If you merely glance through the LA Story's 20th anniversary issue once more -- you also might see, like I do, we were a cult, plain and simple." -- Henry Kriete, "Still Honest To God," September 2005.
-­­­ Kenny Reilly - 2009
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this transmission is privileged, confidential, and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by e-mail and destroy the original message and all copies. Thank you.