Visits: 133
[Note: This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts page.]
Introduction
The seriousness of cultism has long been demonstrated in such groups as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and Mormons. More recently the Unification Church (“Moonies”), the Jim Jones cult, and the Branch Davidians have heightened the public awareness of the degree of senseless mind control of which such are capable (witness the suicide/murder of over nine hundred cult followers of Jim Jones in the “Jamestown Massacre” of 1979 and the fiery deaths of approximately ninety followers of David Koresh). The most prominent and destructive cult related to the Lord’s church in recent years has been the Crossroads Church cult and its offspring, the Boston Church cult.
We do not identify this two-headed monster as a “cult” out of mere prejudice. F.H. (Buddy) Martin lists no fewer than six sources apart from the church which identify this movement as a cult. Additionally, one of the foremost cult exit-counselors in the world is Steven Hassan, totally unrelated to the church, himself once a devoted “Moonie.” In his definitive book, Combatting Cult Mind Control, he identifies both the Crossroads Church and the Boston Church as destructive, mind-control cults, in the same league with the “Moonies.” Our daughter came under control of Crossroads cult devotees in 1979. Thankfully, she came out of it, but not without great difficulty and scars to show for it. (The story of her experiences may be read in her tract, entitled, Crossroads from the Inside.) Our family can well remember the nightmarish times (for her and for us) she went through while she was under their control.
Although the Boston cult has openly broken with the churches of Christ, we still must warn brethren (and others) about it. Its power base is in Boston, Massachusetts, but its aim is to conquer the world—including right where every one of us lives, nomatter how remote the spot. Many still refuse to oppose it because they profess to see in it only a zealous and exuberant group of mostly young people who are baptizing many people. How wrong they are! The system thrives on deceiving people (beginning with the use of the name, “Church of Christ”) until they are enslaved. It is both a cult and a denomination in its own right and it deserves the same exposure that should be given every false way.
Origin and History
The Crossroads Movement, which mothered the Boston Church, had some of its roots in the old Campus Evangelism Movement of the late 1960s. When Campus Evangelism folded on May 1, 1970, due to opposition of faithful brethren and the decline of financial backing, Chuck Lucas, one of the young men it greatly influenced, picked up the pieces and developed it into a cult.
Lucas (who served as part of the Campus Evangelism “field staff”) was supported as “campus minister” at the University of Florida by the old Fourteenth Street Church of Christ in Gainesville, Florida. Lucas had begun his own school for training campus workers there in 1969. In 1973 the congregation built a new building, changed its name to “Crossroads Church of Christ,” and named him evangelist. (From the doctrines and practices of the Crossroads Congregation and its school the “Crossroads Movement” was named.) In 1969 they began conducting “evangelism seminars” which, it soon became evident, were producing the same harmful effects on the hundreds of young people who attended as the old Campus Evangelism seminars before them had, namely disruptions in their families and home congregations due to the rebellious attitudes and iconoclastic ideas they received. Some of the most doctrinally liberal preachers among us were consistently featured on these seminars.
Apparently, sometime in 1972 or 1973 Chuck Lucas became enamored with a book entitled, The Master Plan of Evangelism. Its author, a denominationalist named Robert Coleman, is styled as a “Holy Spirit led theologian and writer.” He advocates a “discipling technique” in which a “master teacher” gathers about him a small group of understudies for the purpose of making them over after himself (allegedly as the Lord did the apostles). This book was listed in the Crossroads bulletin of September 21, 1975, as a text in the Crossroads “Campus Ministers Training Program.” This book was also cited by Crossroads-trained Roger Lamb and Kip McKean as the blueprint for their work on the campus of Eastern Illinois University in 1977.
In late 1974 and early 1975 some Florida congregations (beginning in Gainesville) announced public withdrawal of fellowship from the Crossroads Church. In November 1975 it seemed that the Crossroads Church had responded positively as it issued a statement indicating that it was correcting things which had precipitated the withdrawals. This brought great rejoicing for a time and fellowship with sister congregations was restored. All of these things were widely circulated through the pages of Contending for the Faith, edited by Ira Y. Rice, Jr.
Little more was heard about the Crossroads Church until early 1979. On February 15 a Florida secular newspaper published an article identifying Crossroads as a brainwashing, cult-like movement. One week later the Gospel Advocate carried the first of a series of articles exposing Crossroads tactics and the trail of tears it was producing in congregations and families. Several issues of Contending for the Faith and several tracts and books have since been published exposing their (and Boston’s) errors and dangers. A totally defensive posture has been adopted by its elders and sympathizers. During the most powerful years of Chuck Lucas and the Crossroads Church (ca. 1975-1985) perhaps as many as two hundred churches and several hundred families were divided by devotees of this cultic system. In August 1985 Chuck Lucas was summarily dismissed by the Crossroads elders for unspecified “recurrent sins” and little has been heard of or from him since.
Kip McKean, a disciple of Chuck Lucas and a graduate of the Crossroads school, introduced the Crossroads “discipling” concepts in Boston, Massachusetts in 1979. (He had moved there from the campus work in Charleston, Illinois after his and Roger Lamb’s support was terminated by the Memorial Church of Christ in Houston, Texas May 15, 1977, due to their refusal to cease their unscriptural doctrines and practices.) Even before Lucas’ downfall at Gainesville, the Boston Church (and its school) had begun to overshadow him and the Crossroads Church. McKean’s “discipling” school has proved even more magnetic than that of Lucas at Crossroads. The disciple has shown himself to be the much stronger cult leader than his master!
McKean kept the basic philosophy of Crossroads, his spiritual mother, but has developed it much further than perhaps even Lucas and the Crossroads Church ever envisioned. Boston has changed some of the terminology and strategy, as we shall note. Most Crossroads satellite churches have now been converted (“reconstructed”) to the Boston program — some willingly, others by sheer force. Let us now review some particulars about this dangerous movement.
Designations of the Cult
The “Boston/Crossroads” designation has been explained above (Wayne Coats has coined the name “Bossroads”), but it is known by several other terms as well. The Boston Church has been called the “Neo-Crossroads Movement” because it bears many marks of the Crossroads philosophy but has taken on a separate identity from Crossroads. It is called the “Discipling Movement” because its major emphasis is on what it calls “discipling” (which will be subsequently explained). It is called the “Multiplying Ministries Movement” because it produces rapid numerical growth through its master-disciples methodology. It is called the “Hierarchical Discipling Movement” because it has a definite hierarchy. One of its oldest monikers is the “Total Commitment Movement,” referring to the fact that absolute subjection and obedience are required (albeit to human masters, rather than to the one Master of us all).
A Review of Some Major Doctrines and Practices
Their Discipling Doctrine and Practice
They claim the training of the Twelve by Jesus as their “discipling” model. They insist that a mature Christian should choose a few immature Christians and teach them to follow him (not the Christ, but the human “discipler”). The idea that anyone after Christ and the apostles should use His training of them as a model came not from the New Testament, but from men. This is the concept advanced by the sectarian, Robert E. Coleman, in his book, The Master Plan of Evangelism, never even suggested by the Lord or the apostles in the New Testament. Chuck Lucas made it the backbone of his Crossroads theology, from whence it passed on to Boston through Kip McKean. Milton Jones, a member of the church, advocates a warmed-over version of the same plan in his book, Discipling: the Multiplying Ministry (Star Bible Publications, Inc.).
Jesus’ training of disciples (which all these fellows chose for their model) was actually His training of the apostles(should they call their method “apostling” instead of “discipling”?). There were not and are not any successors to the apostles. As already indicated, there is no hint that we are able to or that we should do what Jesus did concerning the Twelve. His choosing and training of those men was a one-time, special circumstance. Jesus had many more disciples than the Twelve, yet the “discipling” faddists act as if the Twelve were the only ones he ever “discipled.” Where is their model for the many disciples besides the Twelve? Their use of “disciple” is isolated and elevated to mean a “super-Christian,” but the New Testament does not so use it. Their use of “discipling” is likewise a concept foreign to the New Testament. After Pentecost, in New Testament terminology, a disciple is simply a member of the church, a Christian (Acts 8:1; 9:1; 11:26).
Their idea of “discipling” is that the senior “discipleship partner” is to control the life of the junior disciple (this relationship was originally called “prayer partners” by Crossroads but was changed to “discipleship partners” by Boston). The aim of the senior partner is to make the junior partner totally dependent upon him/her psychologically. When this is accomplished, the junior partner will become practically incapable of making the most routine decision without consulting his/her discipleship partner. The aim instilled in the junior partner is to become the clone of the senior partner. Consider the following example from the Boston Church bulletin of May 8, 1987:
Lynne Green was my discipleship partner for a time and a great influence on my life. As I was organizing my thoughts for this article, not one, but two sisters asked me, “Do you know Lynne Green? You remind me so much of her.” Needless to say, I needed no more convincing. Just as in the physical family, we become like our parental role models, so in the spiritual family we acquire the characteristics of those we follow.
Complete dominance and control of the lives of members of the church by other human beings is unscriptural and unhealthy. This a tactic of all cults. By means of “discipling” maneuvers, rigid psychological control and emotional slavery are accomplished. This is documented in our daughter’s tract telling of her experiences with Crossroads devotees. The Boston folk use the same tactics, only to a greater degree, if possible. As will be seen in the following quotes from Boston Church of Christ (their church bulletin, hereafter referred to by date), the idea is that no thought or idea can be held back by the junior disciple from his/her senior discipleship partner and that every aspect of one’s life is subject to review: “Hearts that are opened wide will be exposed hearts with no hidden corners” (4/26/87).
Just how exposed the heart must be is seen in this advice:
The depth of trust and openness with the older couple discipling you should be at the level of the intimate. Terry Moore, who discipled me in Santo Domingo, once pointed out to me that in the three months of our discipling relationship I had never asked him advice on our sexual life. Even if there was no reason for alarm, my responsibility was to sustain with Terry the same level of openness I sought before marriage about sexuality and birth control (6/28/87).
They not only demand knowledge of the sexual habits of their married couples, but they must also tell you all about dating before marriage:
So you want to go out again? Do so! But not right away. Get advice and space those dates. At the beginning usually go out about once a month or five weeks, and then more after the relationship grows. The right way to advance your relationship is advice! Get lots of it from your house church leader and discipler. God will work powerfully through these people (10/25/87)!
Such knowledge of the most intimate things of one’s life gives the senior partner complete psychological mastery of the subject, and such sensitive and confidential information is then passed up to superiors when needed to “whip” the junior partner into subjection if he dares question a decision or command of the leaders. The very fear that such might be done is sufficient to keep most junior partners submissive. This exact tactic was used on our daughter when she expressed some “negative” thoughts to her “prayer partner,” as she tells in her tract.
The significance of the discipling relationship/process is seen in the fact that it is the foundation of the psychological control exercised by the leaders over the subjects. Take away the psychological control and the regimentation of the system crumbles. Thus, the whole existence of the Boston cult depends upon the discipling process.
The Scriptural fallacy of the discipling mechanism and its abilities to make “zombies” out of once-rational people is seen in only a few passages. The Lord forbade His apostles to exercise any such tyranny over His disciples: “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, but not so shall it be among you” (Mat. 20:25-26). If men under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit were not to do such, how much less, uninspired men! The apostles were (and we are) to make disciples by preaching the Gospel (Mat. 28:19, ASV; Mark 16:15-16), not by psychologically enslaving others to human masters as if we were little “Christs.” The only one to whom we are to subject every thought is not another human, but the Christ: “Bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).
The Hierarchy of the Boston Church
The authority structure of the Boston cult is pyramidal in form. It has elders, deacons, various kinds of evangelists, women’s counselors, sector leaders, and zone leaders. This list may appear rather innocent until we define how they relate these people to each other. They have honed the doctrine of evangelistic authority to a razor-sharp edge and the “lead evangelist” is at the point of the pyramid in the congregation. The other evangelists work with and under him, as do the elders and everyone else.
Kip McKean, the founder of the Boston Church of Christ, was lead evangelist there from 1979 until June 1988, at which time he took a day and night to pray and fast in order to discern God’s will for him. According to him, “God made it obvious” that he should become the traveling evangelist and discipler of the movement (modestly comparing himself to the apostle Paul!) so he could constantly visit among the pillar churches throughout the world (6/26/88). However, in this move, he gave up no authority whatsoever, stating his intention to come back to Boston often enough to continue to disciple the new lead evangelist and the elders. One “advancement” McKean has made over the Lucas system at Crossroads is to keep all of the power in his own hands, which Lucas was not able to do. The Crossroads elders continued to maintain some independence from Lucas, at least enough to fire him. The Boston elders are apparently totally dominated by McKean. The impression from reading what he and the Boston elders write is that he could fire them at any time, but that he is accountable to no one. To describe him as a religious despot and cultic pope is no understatement. I suppose an appropriate title for him now would be “universal lead evangelist.”
The women’s counselors are sort of evangelists to the women and are wives of evangelists. Each sector leader is over several zones and each zone has a zone leader. The zone leaders do the actual overseeing and shepherding work elders are supposed to do. (Until March 10, 1990, each zone was made up of several house churches, each with a house church leader, but the house church concept was junked on that date [3/25/90].)
The lead evangelist is at the top of the pyramid at Boston (McKean is no longer lead evangelist, but as “universal lead evangelist” he still exercises authority over the Boston lead evangelist [his younger brother, Randy] and the elders, as previously indicated). Immediately under him come the elders, co-evangelists, and women’s counselors. The third stratum is composed of sector leaders, zone leaders, and ministers (all from this level to the top serve as senior discipling partners—the hierarchy). The bottom level is composed of the junior disciples and new converts, the poor enslaved peons, who must unquestioningly obey their superiors if they hope to advance through the ranks to the point of getting off the bottom so they can become senior partners and tell others what to do!
Even a novice in his knowledge of New Testament church organization can see the fallacies of this superstructure. Elders have the God-given oversight of “all the flock,” including evangelists (Acts 20:28). All members of each congregation (including evangelists) are to obey and submit to the elders of said congregation (Heb. 13:17). The Boston pyramid is similar to and just as sinful as the Roman Catholic pyramid with its pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and priests.
The Universal Structure of the Boston Church
As is their hierarchy, their universal structure is a pyramid in form. Boston, the “mother church,” is at the top, with Kip McKean at the top of the Boston Church, thus at the top of their universal structure. Immediately under Boston is a layer of churches called “pillar churches.” In the US each of these has responsibility over several states, in foreign nations, sometimes over several nations. For example, the San Francisco Church is over all the Southwest US. Other US pillar churches are New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, and San Diego. Under the pillar churches are “capital city churches,” located in capitals of respective states or nations. Next in the pyramid are the “small city churches” and at the bottom are the “countryside churches.” Boston alone chose the pillar churches and what their territories would be. Through their “evangelistic seminar” each August they call their devotees in from all over the world to assign who will go where, do what, and when. Boston thus evinces a centralized headquarters and hierarchy just like every other denomination.
Boston has steamrolled over various Crossroads congregations (“poetic justice,” perhaps?) in what it calls “reconstructions,” moving people in and out like pawns on a chess board. When Boston moved in to “reconstruct” the Atlanta Church in 1987, some of the evangelists and members resisted, so Boston took what they could and proceeded. When they moved in to “reconstruct” San Diego in December 1987 their takeover (despite their disclaimer) and shuffling of personnel was explained as follows:
The Boston Church will not be “over” the San Diego Church, but Tom Brown [of Boston] will continue to disciple (give input and direction to) his Timothy, Bruce Williams. Bruce will disciple and further train the elders (Tit. 2:2), who direct the affairs of the church (I Tim. 5:17). We praise God that the [Gordon] Fergusons will be moving to Boston to further their training. The Boston leadership is sending Bruce and Robin Williams, assisted by Dave and Kathy Eastman, to replace the Fergusons and Marutzkys. (12/20/87).
Boston has now worked out a centralized certification and ordination system for its evangelists that are sent to the satellite churches. In connection with the “reconstruction” of the Berkeley, California Church, which it ordered to move to San Francisco, McKean handed down the mandates:
The evangelists and women’s counselors would resign and become interns. Therefore, when they are appointed in the future, they will be recognized in Boston as well as in our church plantings, such as Bombay or New York. I foresee this to help form a uniform standard of recognition throughout the multiplying ministries (8/88).
Even a neophyte in the Scriptures should know that there is no universal church structure in the New Testament. Each congregation is to have its own elders (Acts 14:23; 20:28). Each eldership has responsibility for and authority in its local congregation alone (Acts 20:28). Congregational independence and autonomy have long been recognized by faithful saints as God’s safeguard against universal, simultaneous apostasy. In a system such as Boston’s (with central headquarters, hierarchy, and certification of its evangelists), because the headquarters is corrupt, every satellite church is immediately and necessarily affected. Boston leaders knew that their set up was anti-Scriptural, so as their universal structure concept evolved, they issued several articles in their bulletin in 1987 calling the New Testament teaching on congregational autonomy a false teaching!
The House Church Fiasco
In 1984 when Boston exceeded one thousand in membership, they decided to break up into house churches “to keep a small-church feeling” (3/25/90). They highly praised Alvin Jennings’ mischievous and heretical little book, How Christianity Grows in the City. Boston bought Jennings’ thesis that the only Scriptural arrangement was to dispose of all church property and meet in dwellings. They focused on the few isolated times the New Testament mentions that the church met in someone’s house and made of this an exclusive pattern, which, of course, it is not. The Boston Church met in rented quarters on Sunday morning and the rest of their meetings during the week were in “house churches,” which numbered over eighty at the time of their abandonment of them. These house churches were separate entities with their own identities, functioning in the practical sense as congregations themselves, yet not autonomous, but answerable to McKean and the Boston elders. This, like their pyramid of universal structure, violates Scriptural congregational autonomy.
Their exclusively “Scriptural” house church arrangement turned out to be a dispensable “expedient” when they began to lose control over some of their members (admitted by elder Al Baird (3/25/90). They have junked the house churches (which had a few dozen members each) in favor of the following: “The zone, averaging 150-300 members, becomes the basic church unit, and the house church unit is no longer used. The zone, in fact, will function as the house church of the Bible …” (3/25/90). (Their zones have even crossed state lines into New Hampshire and Rhode Island. With but little imagination they could have not merely the “Boston Church of Christ,” but the “New England Church of Christ,” all still under one eldership!) Instead of meeting every Sunday morning in the Boston Garden as before, they now meet only one Sunday a month, with all other meetings in the “zone churches” (thus carrying the “divided assembly” concept to perhaps its ultimate extreme!). These are far more like normal individual autonomous congregations than the house churches, yet they are all still under one centralized eldership of three men! These zones have rigid boundaries, with several zones forming a rigidly defined sector. The only basic difference I can see between this and Roman Catholic dioceses and parishes or Mormon stakes and wards is the terminology.
Discipleship Baptism
They practice discipleship baptism, originally called “lordship baptism” under the old Crossroads regime. (Our daughter was subjected to this, as she relates in her tract.) They are not satisfied with one who is willing to repent of sins, confess his faith in Christ as God’s Son, and be baptized in water in order to be saved (Acts 2:38; Rom. 10:9-10). They add their own requirement, claiming that the candidate must totally subject his/her will in the act. Of course, this is what one should do in reference to Christ in the act of repentance. However, the submission that Boston requires is to their own version of what Christ requires of His disciples, as channeled through their own corrupt minds. The complete subjection and submission they require is to themselves, not the Christ. Boston will not accept baptisms from what they style “mainstream” churches of Christ (which describes all non-Boston churches); all such must be rebaptized to enter the cult. Some observers estimate that these re-baptisms account for as many as half of their boasted baptisms.
Holy Spirit Errors
Boston terminology is generously flavored with Pentecostal jargon such as “the leading of the Spirit,” “sent by the Spirit,” “movement of the Spirit,” “to be full of the Spirit, we must pray for the Spirit,” “called by the Spirit to enter full-time ministry,” “. . . during times of fasting. As we are focusing on the spiritual what better time for the Holy Spirit to lead us into the right decision?” Obviously, they believe in direct and immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, apart from His Word. As do Pentecostals, they have a purely subjective approach to direction by the Holy Spirit: If what they do works, then it was the Holy Spirit guiding them; if it does not work, they just did not pay attention! They use the Pentecostal practice of raising the hands during prayers and songs in their assemblies and of applauding their preachers.
Miscellaneous Unscriptural Concepts and Practices
The multiplying ministries are characterized by a strange combination of legalism and liberalism: (1) by legalism in that they demand regimentation and strict adherence to the methods and tactics of the leaders of the movement–it is a system of meritorious works that requires blind, unquestioning obedience and discipline; (2) by liberalism as indicated by their contempt for New Testament authority in various points, as already described. The people in this movement (as in all cults) have always been known for their great enthusiasm for their work (i.e., the work authorized and assigned by their human masters). The same can be said for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Their spirit of worldwide evangelism is positively evil because the message they are preaching is corrupt.
They refer to themselves as “restoring churches” and the “remnant,” and to us as “mainstream churches.” They have written off all non-Boston churches of Christ, as can be seen both from their explicit statements and from their feverish “planting” of churches in places all over the world where the church has existed for decades (even stating in some cases that there is no true church in [name the town or area], both in America and abroad. (They sometimes employ other names such as “The Church of Christ Jesus.” They adopted “The Christian Church” as their name when they moved into Singapore a few years ago. Having been warned by faithful brethren that this cult had its sights set on Singapore, the government was watching for them under the name “Church of Christ,” planning to bar their entrance]). They envision themselves as the spiritually elite and specially blessed of God, as evidenced by their rapidly increasing numbers (the old “we-must-be-doing-something-right-or-we-would-not-be-growing-so-fast” syndrome, as seen in the Pentecostals, Independent Baptists, and many others, including some of our liberal brethren). They could learn even from their cherished error-filled NIV Bibles that the vast numbers have always been on the devil’s, not the Lord’s side. They constantly prattle about “taking the world for Christ,” but He told us to take His Gospel to all the world, with the warning that only a few would hear it and most would reject it (Mat. 7:13-14).
They evince extreme arrogance and egotism. Their bulletin is filled with such words as “awesome,” “powerful,” “audacious,” “fantastic,” “amazing,” “exciting,” all in reference to their own humble efforts, mind you! McKean’s quote in their Biblical Discipleship Quarterly is illustrative of this egomania (note particularly how he dissociates Boston from the “Restoration Movement”):
Our movement of God will have become more sweeping than the Restoration Movement which in its day was contained primarily to Great Britain and the United States. In actuality, the movement of God that we are part of has gone even beyond the impact of the Reformation Movement which was centered largely in Europe” (Spring 1987).
Kip McKean commands almost the reverence of a god, as is seen in the following excerpts: “I thank God daily that Kip McKean had the audacity to call me to leave what I was doing and those whom I loved to follow him as he followed Christ” (5/24/87). “Kip McKean has been raised up by God to lead this ministry and its world-wide impact” (12/27/87). The wife of Robert Gempel, a Boston elder, wrote: “Last, but not least, I want to thank my husband and his co-worker, Al Baird, and my hero in the faith, Kip McKean, for their love and vision for all women” (3/15/88). He obviously has complete power over and adoration of his disciples at present, but he is a mere man and like others who have allowed misled people to make of them little tin gods, he will someday fall, even as Chuck Lucas, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, David Koresh and many others already have.
They place husband-wife couples over congregations, as seen in the following:
Frank and Ericka Kin, who have co-directed the work in Paris with the Turnbulls for the first year, are leaving Paris to go to Berkeley, California and serve that church as their lead evangelist and women’s counselor. Tom and Ann Turnbull, who have had a very fruitful and exciting year in Paris, will now solely direct the church as the lead evangelist and women’s counselor (8/16/87).
This high-handed tactic demonstrates as much as anything their utter disdain for Scriptural pattern and authority. This is diametrically opposed to the Scriptural direction of elders in the local church (Acts 20:28) and to the Scriptural teaching concerning the role of women in the church (1 Tim. 2:11–12, et. al.).
Conclusion
These few items are but a brief summary of some of the grievous errors of the Discipling Movement, particularly the Boston Church of Christ incarnation of it. They see themselves as specially chosen and anointed of God and distinct from the Lord’s church, which was restored approximately two hundred years ago. With this point of distinction, I am in total agreement with Boston! The forerunners of Boston were members of the church who went astray in their doctrine and practice in building the Crossroads movement. The Boston Church has moved far beyond being merely a few misguided brethren, openly declaring itself an entity distinct from the church of Christ. We freely grant that they are so far from the doctrine and practice of the New Testament that they are no more our brethren than the Methodists, the Mormons, or the Moonies, in spite of their illegitimate use of “Church of Christ” as their name. They deserve the same exposure to the light of Truth that every other system of error deserves (Mat. 7:15; 15:3–14; Acts 5:29; Rom. 16:17–18; Eph. 5:11; Tit. 3:10; Rev. 22:18;19; et al.)
Endnotes
- F.H. (Buddy) Martin, Multiplying Ministries Movement (Houston, TX: Memorial Church of Christ, 1987), p. 4.
- Steven Hassan, Combatting Cult Mind Control (Rochester, VT: Park Street Press, 1988), pp. 114-121. At the time he wrote his book he had already helped over thirty people extricate themselves from the Boston Church.
- Bronwen McClish Gibson, Crossroads from the Inside, (Denton, TX: Valid Publications, Inc., 1989, 8th ed.).
- Randy Noles, Outlook, Oviedo, FL, p. 1.
- A statement was issued by Dick Whitehead and Bill Hogle, elders of the Crossroads Church of Christ, at the “Spiritual Growth Workshop” in Orlando, FL (July 28, 1990). While it purports to be a “confession” and a statement of “repentance,” it is not at all specific as to what is being repented of and confessed. It bemoans the many things that were “attributed to the Crossroads congregation . . . which grew out of the abuses” of what they were teaching and practicing. While decrying the practice of one Christian or congregation’s controlling another, there is no specific statement of repentance concerning their discipling theology and methodology. The whole tenor of the “confession” smacks of a confession, not of their own grievous errors, but of the sins of those who allegedly distorted and abused the training received at Crossroads (in the school and the church). Of course, all lovers of Truth would rejoice over full, unequivocal repentance by the Crossroads elders and the return of that church to sound doctrine, but in our opinion their latest statement leaves much to be desired in these respects.
- For example, when Jerry Jones was fired as head of the Bible department at Harding University in 1983 because of his Crossroads sympathies and connections, he did not wait long to go to Boston (not Gainesville!) to enter their “discipling” program as an “intern,” even though he had a Ph. D. in some field of religion. Jones quickly rose through the Boston ranks, first to deacon, then to bulletin editor, and even to elder. He fell out of favor with Kip McKean and the other elders in about 1985 and moved to St. Louis. In recent years (i.e., since ca. 1987) he has been speaking out against the Boston “discipling model” while continuing to defend the Crossroads model, which he has propounded through several books. He is not too particular about where he conducts his discipling seminars, having recently presented them in some of the most blatantly liberal congregations among us and in at least one Christian Church (Knoxville, TN, 1988). Another example of McKean’s magnetism is seen in the migration of George Gurganus to Boston at about the time of Jones’ arrival there. At the time, Gurganus had a Ph. D, had long served as a missionary in Japan, and had for several years been head of the Missions department at Abilene Christian University!
- In addition to the Gibson tract and the Hassan book already cited, for additional information, I recommend the following: Maurice Barnett, The Discipling Movement (Phoenix, AZ: Privately pub., 1989, 2nd ed.); Jackie M. Stearsman, A Critique of the Multiplying Ministries of the Boston Church of Christ (Lakeland, FL: Stearsman’s Pub., 1988); Don Deffenbaugh, The Discipling Movement Among Churches of Christ (Neosho, MO: Privately pub., 1987 ed.); F.H. (Buddy) Martin, Multiplying Ministries Movement (Houston, TX: Memorial Church of Christ, 1986 [also available on audio and video cassette tape]).
- Parts of this chapter first appeared in God Hath Spoken, ed. Bill Jackson (Austin, TX: Southwest Church of Christ, 1991), pp. 310–329. Used by permission, Southwest Church of Christ, Austin, Texas.
[Note: I wrote this MS for, and presented a digest of it orally at the 18th Annual Spiritual Sword Lectureship
hosted by the Getwell Church of Christ, Memphis, TN, October 17–21, 1993. It was published in the book of
lectures: The Restoration: The Winds of Change, Ed. Jim Laws.]
Attribution: From thescripturecache.com; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.
