My son has gotten acquainted with some other college students who are from the "Boston Movement", AKA "International Church of Christ." They are, of course, actively trying to recruit and "disciple" him. He has requested more information about them.

I have some write-ups about them from their earlier days, when many people looked on them as something positive. (I have a copy of an article by Don DeWelt, really praising them.) But with regard to what they have become in recent years, I only have some general information and a lot of vague hearsay. Could someone give concrete facts about what they are like now? Could someone perhaps direct me to some websites about them? I have the URL of their own website, but nothing so far from the "other side."

Thanks for any help anyone can give.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Answers

AMENDMENT.

After writing and submitting the above, I did what I probably should have done first. I used a "search engine" to look for "boston movement" and came up with a plethora of different websites on both sides of the issues. So I guess I don't need any more websites in general, though I would be interested if any of you would like to recommend any that you think are particularly good.

Another thing you could do is post any personal experiences you have had with the movement.

Thanks.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

When I was in college, the Boston movement was active on our campus, back when it was still called the Boston movement. It seemed like they had a lot of neatly dressed fairly good looking people. Sociollogially, they seemed similar. We were in the South, but it seemed like they all had the same sort of standard American accent. (A lot of people at UGA do as well. Many people in the Atlanta area - a big population center for the state- do.) In some ways, they seemed to all be alike. Dress neatly, talk in a similar way. I just noticed that about them. It seemed unusual. There was one that wore a bandana on his head. He was a new convert. I think he got neater after a while. These are just things I noticed. one guy from the group told me that they tended to look for leaders and people who had it together. He said some groups tried to evangelize the down and out and you couldn't accuse them of doing that.

A couple of years later, I was in Seoul Korea walking down the street with another American. We came across two other Americans and started talking. The young man said that he went to a really great church nearby, do you want to come. I could tell by the enthusiasm he had- which looked like something he was trying to display- and I asked him if it was a Boston church of Christ. He asked how I knew? I didn't say, but it was because I recognized that same manner of speaking, and the enthusiasm.

I have known some people in the movement. Many of them are really serious about Christianity and studying the Bible. They get bad-mouthed a lot because of exclusivity and excesses that people report about their movement. The organizational structure seems to be really heirarchical and denominational. From what I've read, the mvoement started during the time of the 'sheperding movement' which was influencing a lot of churches. The idea is that one person 'disciples' another, and that person 'disciples' another and so on. I've heard some of the extreme cases where one person writes down his schedule, and his discipler tells him how to change it.

Here in Indonesia, though, other Christians comment that they hang out in Christian book stores and recruit there. My wife says that her cousin, who is in the movement, thought that if her church didn't disciple someone, they were not a real disciple. This country is mostly Muslim. Some of the Christians here don't like it that they target other Christians. This country is predominantly Muslim.

My wife's cousin (the other cousin's brother) was going to sell his computer. He borrowed money from his fiancee to buy it. His discipler didn't think that it was appropriate for them to do their finances like that, so he was going to sell his computer. My wife told me about this. He had some money coming in in July, so instead of selling in May or whenever it was, I suggested he tell his discipler 'I thought about what you said, and so I decided in July, when I get some money, I'll pay my fiancee back.' I think that was his original plan. Of course, I did ask him if he had to do everything his discipler said, and said some things about us all being brethren.

I appreciate the zeal of these folks. But I've known two or three people that seemed to have been chewed up and spit out by this group. They say here that the members seem to be under condemnation if they don't witness every day. There is a lot of works orientation. One young man who came out of it decided he didn't have what it took to be a Christian. (I wish I'd known more about grace back then, to be able to share more to help him.) He thought he'd left the true church, and so he left God. I knew another young man in Korea who was in a similar boat. I've met others like that as well.

Disciplers in this group seem to have more say-so over another's life than elders or pastors do in some churches. If someone is a young believer- a novice- but invites a lot of people to 'Bible talks,' shares his faith, and gets a lot of people baptized, he can 'move up in the ranks.' Young people, often relatively new believers, can have a lot of say-so over the lives of other new converts.

I don't know if they have tuned down the control in their discipleship techniques in the US end of the movement or not.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

I think you will have some tough decisions to make about this one. From everything I had read or seen concerning the Boston Movement and 'shepherding' in general, it is considered either cultic activity or on the fringe of becoming cultic.

True biblical Christianity will not produce guilt based on not prducing enough works (like witnessing), and will not deny the individual believer personal freedom. The example of the cousin who was having his personal finances either dictated or supervised by the discipler is a good example. This type of behavior is no where to be found in the NT. Fear, guilt, control, and overemphasis on works are the earmarks of a cult. Also in this movement is the idea that they have 'special' or 'more complete' biblical knowledge and experience. Again, this is non-biblical, because we have in the scriptures the whole revelation which God planned for us to have.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

It's bad enough our movement evokes prejudicial reactions from others (witness my recent release from the Online Christian Newsletter because I was a "Campbellite"), without being associated in people's minds with this cultic offshoot as well. *sigh*

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

I have had friends who went off with this group, and also read material on it. This group, as most other groups such as Jim Jones',started out with good intentions. However, power pollutes and that is what happened in this group.

A very good friend of mine is the sister-in-law of the head of that group. She and her husband (his brother) went off with him but soon saw what was going down. They were so shook up that I am not sure she is completely over the experience.

One friend of mine said he misses the companionship he had there, the closeness with others, the love he felt from the group as a whole. However, he would not put up with the control certain ones had over the others.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Just an observation,

When I applied at Indiana University of PA to be recognized as a campus minister, I mentioned that our support came from Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. When I mentioned Churches of Christ, I was asked directly if I was a part of the Boston/Crossroads movement of the Churches of Christ. IUP has had some problem with that movement in the past.

This is one of the reasons (not the only) that we are refraining from calling the new congregation here in Indiana, PA a Church of Christ ... too much baggage in this college town.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Benjamin

Several years ago Kip McKean (sp) started a church about 3 blocks from my office here in Illinois. Amazing growth. Same problems as mentioned above. They wanted complete control of an individual. He left before being here to long. I think he went to Boston from here. There were a lot of problems before he left as well some that lingered after. It seemes they required total commitment or nothing. Many couldn't deal with that. They were also aggressive. Hmmmm!

I cannot believe that all they were doing was bad. I suspect they were trying to do good but going about in the wrong way. He must be very knowledgeable about church growth. I would like to know his views on winning the lost.

Most of what I have heard about the Boston Church has been from a worldly point of view. CBS, NBC, ETC. I would like to hear their side. From my limited knowledge of their work I would proceed with caution.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

As far as I am able to discern, the Boston movement isn't a cult in the theological sense, as they pretty much are orthodox in most of their beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong on this). With the exception that they believe they are the only true church and all others who haven't been baptized into their church are not Christians, and that there can be only one church in any given community.

However they are very cultic in a psychological sense, as they practice very heavy peer pressure and mind control tactics (their "shepherding" tactics) and encourage [coerce] their members to break former family/friend/church ties.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Thank you for all your responses. While most of you have pointed to the problems and dangers, some of you have pointed out that there has been some good or apparent good in some of what they do or have done. (For example, Faris's latest posting.) Of course, the Mormons put on a good front and dress well too. (Much of what Link said in his submission reminded me of the Mormon "elders" we see around here.) And the Mormons and J.W.s and a lot of other cults can point to great growth.

Anyway, for those of you who wish we could incorporate some of the "good side" into our own ministries, I would recommend one website I ran across in my research. It is called "The Discipling Dilemma" and the "address" is http://www.vcnet.com/measures/TDD.01.html. (I wish I could make that "clickable", but I've forgotten how.)

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Good points,

These guys are very serious and about evanglizing and being obedient. They make an organized, conscience effort to disciple others. They get to know each other and build up relationships. They emphasize ministry from regular people, rather than just having professional preachers to the ministering. They are excited about being Christians.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Watchman Ne was a human being, and I don't think he had a perfect understanding of everythign there was to know. He did write some good things, though.

Many house church people like some things Nee had to write about ecclesiology, but don't like his authoratarianism. The book I made reference to earlier on this board somewhere, _The Normal Christian Church Life_, does not to my recollection contain anything noticeably about this idea of authoratarian 'covering.' It was written in the 30's I think, and Nee died in '72 I think.

I'd read that the Boston movement was influenced by the thinking of the Shepherding movement and other similar lines of reasoning then popular among evangelicals. When the movement started, this type of idea about church authority was popular, and an article I read concluded that these practices just stuck in the BCC and became less popular in other movements.

Nee's writings were released int he 70's. It would be interesting to find out if the Shepherding movement did start from the influence of his writings. What were the other two 'roots' of authoratarian that the article you quoted referred to?

Nee's book _The Normal Christian Church Life_ has a lot of good things to say about ecclesiology. But it does contain his one-church-per-city view. There are some weak points in Nee's logic. Like saying that 'church' is never used to refer to a unit of church smaller than a city. What about the church in the house of Aquilla and Priscilla in Romans? The rest of the book has a lot of good points in it, and I learned a lot from reading the book.

'The Little Flock' was a group of Christians that did not want to name themselves- Nee and some others were adament about that anyway. Nee did consider there to be one true church in every city. One of his criterea for a chruch being the church was tha the church not be diviseive. The local church movement, which grew out of this movement, allows believing visitors to come in and participate in the meetings- take communion and speak, like other members.

I've run across a Plymouth Brethren author who believed in the continue of apostles. Others on the list I was reading seemed to believe in it as well. I don't know if the idea got inthe PB from Nee, or if it was already a PB idea during the 'Little Flock's' brief stint of fellowship with the Exclusive Brethren end of the PB movement, before they stopped fellowshipping because the Chinese brethren did not want to be non- exclusive.

Some of the 'later writings' of Watchman Nee were reconstructed from notes, and some question their genuineness. The Little Flock movement in Taiwan and the US came under the influence or control of another man named Witness Lee. it became a top-down organization from what I've read in certain parts of the world. Lee's notes are printed in their special edition of the NT. Some have accused Lee of promoting Modalism. I've heard that there are some control issues among that group. In my brief interactions with them here in Indonesia I haven't noticed any.

Frankly, I've gotten the feeling of more exclusivism from those in the Restoration Movement than in the Chinese end of the Recovery Movement.

Some have also accused 'the Local Church' movement, the US-Taiwan end of this movement of believing in 'baptismal regeneration.' A CoC missionary here took me to a meeting here. He was interested int ehir group because they were doing some scriptural things he wasn't seeing int he CoC movement.

I do believe there is some sort of pattern for city unity of the church that we often do not see with local congregations, but I don't think that just by deciding that you are not going to be exclusive and meeting the other requirements Nee mentioned that that makes you the true church in a city. Do you have any evidence of a direct or indirect link between Nee's teachings and the BCC?

The Chinese end of 'the Little Flock' survived the persecution during the cultural revolution. They were considered to be the 2nd largest Christian group in China when the communists took over. They kept going. I wonder to what extent they influenced the house church mvoement in China. Before the Communists took over, they believed in local eldership, not having a clergy-laity distinction, mutual participation in meetings, meeting in homes, local church government, and not being in denominations. An interesting movement for those interested in New Testament Primitivism. A movement like that must be hard to step out. You can't just burn the building and throw the preacher in jail.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

I hope the rest of you understand that Link is here primarily responding to something I posted elsewhere -- on the "Apostles" thread.

For Link and anyone else who is interested, the links between the Boston Movement and Watchman Nee's teachings (and also various other "roots" of the movement, including Catholic auricular confession) are in chapter 8 of the manuscript I recommended above. Go to that URL, which gives a "clickable" table of contents at the beginning, followed by Chapter 1. Click on Chapter 8 and you are there. But don't skip Chapter 1 itself. I haven't read ALL of the other chapters myself yet, but those I have are good. For past "roots", however, read Chapter 8, and for recent history of the movement, read Chapter 1.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Benjamin,

I typed in that URL reference you gave above and the result was that they say there is no listing.

Perhaps someone else can do a 'hot link'?

In Him,

Connie

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

http://www.vcnet.com/measures/TDD.01.html

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

Personally I have nothing against discipling per se, I think that most new Christians would benefit from being discipled or mentored by an older Christian. But I do object to the form practiced by the Boston movement which is very similar to mind control techniques used in many cults.

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

A disturbing excerpt from that article:

"... the Boston church has started teaching a doctrine of authority that goes far beyond what was taught earlier in the discipling movement. They are teaching that Hebrews 13:17 ["Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."] applies to matters of opinion. They are claiming that this verse gives authority in matters of opinion to evangelists and elders, zone leaders, house church leaders, Bible Talk leaders, and disciplers. Al Baird told members of the Atlanta Highlands congregation that it would be a sin to refuse to obey the instructions of a discipler--even in a matter of opinion with no biblical justification at all because of the claim that God has placed that discipler over that Christian. Some observers believe that this is what was being practiced all along in the discipling movement, but they did not admit it or try to defend it until recently. What is happening now, however, is that discipling with its requirement of imitation and unconditional submission is being extended to congregations."

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2000

Here is a clickable link to that site Benjamin mentioned!

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2000

Thanks for the link, John.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2000

I hear 'Obey them which have the roule over you' Can also be translated as 'Be persuaded by htem who guide you.'

Be that as it may, even elders are not tupposed to lord over the flock. The sdisciples weren't supposed to either. The 12 didn't demand who the 7 would be. Peter didnt' tell the Jews who questioned him about baptizing Cornelius and those with him, "I'm an apostle. I am over you inthe Lord. Don't question me. Just submit and be quiet."

Jesus taught, "For one is your Master, even Christ, adn all ye are brethren."

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2000

Benjamin,

Thought I would add this story. The other day, the copy repairman was at our church. He lived clear across the Valley and asked if I knew of a good church on his side of town. He told me he had gone to an ICOC previously. When he was contemplating moving, he told someone at his church. He was considering Denver (? I think). The person said that would be good because they had a church there. Later, he decided to move to Idaho. He was told he could not move there because there was no ICOC church and he would go to hell. When he said he was moving, members of the church started coming by his house to try and get this man's wife and children to leave him, so they could stay in the Phoenix area.

BTW, Christianity Today had a large article a couple of years ago. Might be worth tracking down.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Sounds eerily like the same tactics the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses use when someone leaves their cult. It is very common for them to counsel the spouse to seek a divorce rather than be "unequally yoked" with an "apostate."

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000