The ICC teaches that we need Bible Churches, not simply New Testament Churches.

The first tenet of the International Christian Church’s 5 Core Convictions is that they are not simply a “New Testament Church” but a “Bible Church”.

But what do they mean by this?

According to one of their official articles, Biblical differences between the ICOC and ICC:

The Mainline Church of Christ is an off-shoot of the Restoration Movement begun in the United States in the early 1800’s by Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone to name a few. Their plea was to “restore the New Testament Church.” Therefore, they believed that though the Old Testament was divinely inspired and historically accurate, only the New Testament would be their sole rule of faith and practice in deciding matters of doctrine including ecclesiastical structure. This is now the conviction of the most influential leaders in the ICOC. However, we in the ICC believe like Paul who wrote in late 66 AD – some 35 years after the beginning of the church, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) Technically speaking, the word “Scripture” in this passage refers to only the Old Testament. Now, through the inspiration of the Spirit, we believe that it applies as well to the New Testament. Though we believe “the Law” is no longer binding (Colossians 2:13-14), the Scriptural concepts in the Old Testament such as “calling out the remnant,” “dating and marrying only disciples,” and “a central leader and leadership for God’s movement” are in the New Testament, yet the Old Testament is much richer in its depth on these vital issues. Also, the “Jethro Principle” of leadership in Exodus 18 allows us to lead and take care of thousands of God’s precious people. Therefore, we believe we are commanded by God to build congregations based on both the Old and New Testaments – a “Bible Church,” not simply a “New Testament Church.”

Essentially, their argument can be broken down into the following three points:

1. Churches that are off-shoots of the Restoration Movement that started in the 1800s, including the Mainline Churches of Christ and the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) are only concerned with being “New Testament Churches” since their plea was to “restore the NT Church”.
2. But since Scripture is much bigger than the NT alone (and Paul’s reference to Scripture in 2 Tim 3:16 is referring to the OT), the ICC needs to be a Bible Church instead!
3. However, although the OT is no longer binding, we can still draw important principles from it, including matters pertaining to marriage, leadership structures, and “calling out the remnant” (which means, gathering the “unsaved” who belong in other churches to join the ICC).

What does the Bible teach?

There is much to like and agree with the ICC’s conviction to be a “Bible church”. I mean, who doesn’t want to be a Bible church anyway?

In fact, even the ICOC (which was originally founded by Kip McKean but have later broken ties with him) wants to be a “Bible church” – contrary to ICC’s assertion that they are only concerned with being “NT churches”. In an article responding to ICC’s claim that the ICOC are interested only in the NT to inform their methodologies and principles, Mike Taliaferro from the ICOC writes:

This statement is a complete misrepresentation of the ICOC. First of all, church buildings, pews, song books, Bible Talks, discipleship partners, Bring Your Neighbor Day, sound amplification, communion trays, and printed invitations are not found in the pages of the New Testament. We have no problem with them. They are obviously expedient and useful in carrying out the commands found in the Bible. I know of no evangelist or elder in the ICOC who believes that any practice not mentioned in the Bible is “unscriptural.”…. Why do you accuse us of something we simply do not believe? Most of us believe that we are able to do things that are not explicitly commanded or patterned in the New Testament, as long as they are helpful. We just don’t agree with YOUR practices recently.

The Apostle Paul desires a “Bible church” too!

Furthermore, the Bible itself gives us good reason to be churches that are built upon the entire Scriptures. The Apostle Paul himself writes:

¹⁹Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, ²⁰built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. ²¹In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

Ephesians 2:19-21 (NIV2011)

Paul calls on the Ephesian church to be built upon both the apostles and prophets, suggesting both New and Old Testament teachings are to be the church’s foundation.

Therefore, in one sense, the Bible fully supports the conviction that Christian churches be Bible churches.

The problem of ambiguity

However, the key issue with this “Bible church” core conviction of the ICC is its ambiguity, particularly in terms of its application.

It looks good on paper and on your public website to have this tenet as a core conviction because for the untrained eye it gives the ICC a lot of legitimacy.

Unfortunately, the ambiguity of this conviction can easily lend itself to abuses of Scripture by smuggling in new ideas and practices that are unwarranted.

Although the ICC is correct in saying that many commands and regulations found in the OT are no longer directly applicable to Christians (eg. we no longer follow OT food laws, nor do we circumcise believers), the complicated task is to decide what principles found in the OT are applicable to Christians today and how it is actually applied.

Here are a few examples on how the ICC actually applies the OT.

• Calling out the remnant: This is likely a reference to the OT (as well as NT idea) that God preserves a remnant of people for Himself (eg. Isaiah 10:20-23; Romans 9:6-29). In practice, this gives justification for ICC members to target their evangelistic efforts towards “unsaved” people who go to other churches outside of the ICC. According to an ICC newsletter in November 2014, the phrase “calling out the remnant” was used during the time when Kip McKean wanted to lure people away from the ICOC to join his new church in Portland. Rather than wanting to be seen as mere “sheep stealing”, McKean legitimised what he did by giving it biblical warrant.
• Dating and only marrying disciples: It is true that the OT law forbids Israel to marry those who worship other gods (Deuteronomy 7:1-4) and a strong argument can be made using the NT that it applies to Christians as well (eg. 1 Corinthians 7:39). However, can this theology justify the ICC’s extra-biblical practice where you can only date people upon receiving permission from those of higher spiritual authority than you?
• A central leader & leadership for God’s movement: As explained in an earlier article on this website, despite the fact that the OT has a pyramid structure in leadership, it would be blasphemy to have Kip McKean take the rightful place of Jesus Christ as being that human leader who now presides over the Christian church. Sadly, this “Bible Church” conviction unfairly legitimises McKean’s position at the top of the pyramid.

Conclusion

While the idea of having a “Bible church” is thoroughly biblical, the way in which it is understood and implemented in the ICC merely legitimises many of its questionable and extra-biblical practices. It also highlights the way in which theology is often done in the ICC – backwards.