The ICC believes that it is rightful to speak where the Bible is silent, and silent where the Bible speaks.

Is it biblical for the church to adopt practices that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture?

For the International Christian Church, the answer is a resounding “Yes”. In fact, this is one of the 5 Core Convictions that distinguish the ICC from other churches.

However, to properly understand what ICC means by “speaking where the Bible is silent”, it is important to first understand the history of this church.

Although the ICC’s “Sold-Out Movement” traces its roots back to the Restoration Movement of the 1800s (which aimed to restore the church back to 1st century beliefs and practices), the conviction to “speak where the Bible is silent, and be silent where the Bible speaks” was designed by Kip McKean to sharply contrast and correct the mantra coined by his Restorationist forefather Thomas Campbell (1763-1864) – “Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent”.

The ICC rejects this idea because it unreasonably places too many limitations on what the church can do, and which could also lead to absurdities.

In one of the ICC’s publications, Living in the Book of Acts, it remarks:

With this theology they would be correct in many instances, but they are then faced with a challenge; how far do you go with this thinking? Does a true Christian need to dress the same way the early Christians did? Does a church service need to go through midnight? (Acts 20:7-12) Do we need to put money at the church leader’s feet instead of in a basket or plate? (Acts 4:37) Certainly, these things aren’t wrong but are they necessary? How far do you go “restoring” the book of Acts? This type of theology has been the most divisive, as even those who think like this can’t agree on how much is to be restored. It is a black-hole letter of the law theology that leaves the soul empty and looking for the life of the Spirit.

We must instead be silent where the Bible speaks, and speak where the Bible is silent. If the Bible commands something, we are to be silent and obey what God says. Where it is silent we have the freedom to come up with methodologies prayerfully based on biblical principles that propagate God’s purposes. This is true biblical restoration.

In other words, rather than shaping our theology on the “letter of the law” which constantly begs the question on how much of Scripture to actually “restore”, it is far better to be prayerfully dynamic in our methodologies in places where the Bible does not explicitly forbid and where it still carries God’s purposes.

Therefore, the ICC argues, it is the responsibility of church leadership to develop with these practices and methodologies for church members today that may not have biblical precedence, and yet are scripturally valid. In response, church members are called to obey their leaders.

The above article continues:

Hebrews 13:17 is in the Bible for this very reason: 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 and not a burden for that would be of no advantage to you. Biblically, leadership has the authority to speak where the Bible is silent (see below “Central leader and a central leadership”).

Leaders bring unity and direction to God’s people. A lot of ministry is not necessarily right verses wrong, but sometimes good, better, or best. Leaders must speak where the Bible is silent for the congregation or there will be disorder and chaos. In a family the dad may make a decision that isn’t the best for the family but everyone gets behind it. This was done in the early church by James who spoke where the New Covenant was silent, if you will, by commanding the whole movement to abstain from food polluted by idols. (Acts 15:19-21) It was made authoritative in the form of a letter and the letter was taken to the churches for them to obey. (Acts 16:4)

What does the Bible teach?

Yes! The overwhelming majority of mainstream Evangelical churches today would heartily agree with the ICC that the Bible gives the church a lot of freedom in its activities, even those without explicit biblical precedence, as long as they are in line with biblical principles.

Theologians often call this “contextualisation” – ie. taking biblical principles and applying them to different cultural contexts.

Hence, it is common for some mainstream churches to have a morning prayer book service which only involves an organ for their congregational singing, but in the evening have a different style of worship and music – say, with saxophone and electric guitar. Neither organ or guitar has explicit biblical precedence in their use for congregational worship, yet it is widely adopted in church services.

Again, the problem is ambiguity

As mentioned in an earlier article, one of the problems with ICC’s core convictions is that they can be ambiguous in their meaning.

In this case, the conviction to “speak where the Bible is silent” leaves A LOT of room for potential abuse.

Should church leadership be unquestioned?

Since the Bible gives churches a lot of freedom to formulate practices and methodologies that are not explicit in Scripture, the ICC argues that church members ought to obey their leaders (like obeying your father at home) in matters of church practice, even if they don’t necessarily make the “best” decisions at times.

While the principle of obeying church leaders is biblical (eg. Hebrews 13:17 as they mentioned), but in practice there ought to be caveats.

Even at home, you shouldn’t blindly obey your father if you know it would end up hurting the family or himself. In a dysfunctional family, the father can make detrimental decisions that you should NOT get behind. What if you dad wants to withdraw money from your bank account so that he could gamble it away or binge-drink? What if he tells you not to call the cops when he’s abusing your mother? What if he wants to sell your siblings into prostitution so that he can make an extra buck? Should you get behind these decisions? No!

As you can see, I’m using extreme examples to simply draw out the point that a Bible believer should never so blindly follow to the letter of the law (as even the ICC agrees!) and miss out the spirit of the law. Even Jesus himself wants this in his followers (eg. Luke 14:1-5).

So the real questions that we should ask are these: Is the ICC a dysfunctional family? Do ICC leaders exhibit qualities or formulate practices that are harmful to the congregation? Have there been former members who have been seriously hurt by this church?

The answer seems to be “Yes” to all the above questions – judging by the numerous testimonies of former members who have left the ICC (some of these can be found under the Links page).

Many former members have ended up wounded and distraught, some of whom have even become atheists, because of the ICC’s discipleship practices which go far beyond the spirit of Scripture. This is where “speaking where the Bible is silent” can end up, if the leadership is left unchecked and unquestioned.

An example of bad Christian leadership in the Bible

The Apostle Peter certainly has a fair share of embarrassing stories in the NT. Although most of these happened in the Gospel accounts (before he became a church leader), one story was shared by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 2:11-19 where Peter (or “Cephas” in Aramaic) was openly rebuked by Paul for his hypocrisy and setting a bad example to the Christians at Antioch.

This story is important because it shows that Christian leaders are not infallible, but can succumb to sin just like everyone else. Moreover, the sins of Christian leaders can have disastrous consequences as it can lead other Christians astray, which is exactly what had happened in the story mentioned by Paul. He says in verse 13, “The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.“

Therefore, rather than following Christian leaders blindly, the NT calls us to be alert and even rebuke your leaders when they do wrong!

Thankfully, in Peter’s case, Paul’s rebuke may have helped him to repent. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 (which is Peter’s final letter in the Bible that he wrote before he died), he commends all of Paul’s letters to the church and even considers them as “Scripture”, in spite of the fact that the letter to the Galatians made him look foolish!

Unfortunately, the questioning of leaders is not taught or encouraged in the ICC, in particular at the top tiers of leadership where Kip McKean sits.

Conclusion

Although there is generally no problem with trusting in your church leadership to make the right decisions when it comes to church life and practice (since the Bible does not give explicit guidance on every single matter), a healthy church ought to encourage and empower church members to question everything that goes on in church, even the leadership!

Sadly, if the leadership is left unquestioned, not only would regular members be led astray but there will also be a trail of distraught former members – which there are innumerous in the ICC’s rear view mirror.