Coltin Rohn’s recent resignation from the International Christian Church following his criticism of the ICC’s money raising policies has brought swift retaliation from the church he had formerly called home. Not only was he disfellowshipped and had his old sermons deleted, soon also came a flood of criticism from fellow leaders who he had considered friends.

One of such leaders is Mike Patterson from the Boston ICC. In a now deleted/privated Facebook post (which was then forwarded by Jason Dimitry of the San Francisco Bay ICC) dated 23rd December 2022, Patterson critiques Rohn’s view that the ICC should not push members to meet fixed financial contribution targets.

The following are the screenshots of Mike Patterson’s post titled “10 Reasons Leadership Can Call The Church to Specific Number Goals or Expectations with Contributions and Evangelism“:

Unfortunately, I don’t have the screenshot for point 10. But if you happen to have it, please send it to me.

[Update 6th January 2023: Thanks to a reader of my blog, I was able to obtain the 10th point below]

A response to Mike Patterson

So is Patterson’s argument biblically sound? Let us analyse each of his points:

Point 1

We speak where the Bible is silent and are silent where the Bible speaks. If the Bible says it, we obey it, but when silent, leadership can speak for how to carry out God’s principles. God gives general commands such as “go and make disciples of all nations,”but leaders devise the “how to” or strategy. Similarly, with money, the Bible commands us to be generous, but leaders can call the church to meet the needs through specific goals since there is no command against doing so.

If you had been listening to Rohn’s side of the story, you’d learn that he does believe that the Bible speaks about the subject in question and isn’t silent about it. Specifically, he has been using 2 Corinthians 9:7 as his basis to critique the ICC’s practice of setting fixed financial goals and coercing members in meeting them.

Furthermore, the irony of Patterson’s first point is that Rohn was a part of the ICC’s leadership! In fact, he’s served in multiple ICC churches (eg. Boston and Columbus) in the role of pastor and evangelist. So he’s definitely not your average Joe church member. But the question is, what happens when leaders disagree amongst themselves? Do we simply take the matter further up? But what if the subject of disagreement has to do with the top leadership themselves (say, if they have come up with biblically unsound policies from the top)? What other authority can you turn to?

This is the flaw of a hierarchical church model where you have sinful humans at the very top. There are essentially no safeguards to keep them accountable if they’re in error.

In Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus says to tell it to “the church” about unrepentant people if they refuse to turn from sin. In my opinion, Jesus’ instructions grants “the church” (ie. the assembly of church members) the collective authority to keep even top church leaders in check if they sin. After all, every Christian now has access to the clear and authoritative words of the apostles in the Bible as well as the Holy Spirit to guide their judgement, so they’re not simply going out on a limb in weighing up spiritual matters.

So in Coltin Rohn’s case, he ought to be able to voice his concerns about the leadership and their money raising policies before the wider ICC congregation. But sadly, he and his wife Mandee have already received a “marking” letter for being divisive and disruptive, which means church members have been specifically asked to “withdraw all fellowship from them – meaning all forms of communication with them, including unfriending blocking, and refraining from any digital interaction via social media.” (The letter can be read in full on their website in the above link).

I have also written another article that critiques the idea of speaking where the Bible silent that might help with this.

Point 2

Paul writes to the Christians not to give under compulsion or reluctantly. This command is given to each Christian and is their responsibility to fulfill. Similarly, some Christians will share their faith with a pure heart as God desires and some will not. Church leadership can’t control individuals’ hearts or responses to sacrificial calls. Leaders will be judged who exasperate the flock in an ungodly way as they have to give an account. (2 Corinthians 9:7, Hebrews 13:17)

I can’t see how this point adds to Patterson’s thesis that the church can call on members to specific goals. On the contrary, it may even lend weight to the argument that the church shouldn’t.

It is also worth noting that Rohn isn’t against the idea of setting goals, but it’s the coercion (from the leadership above) in meeting them – that’s the big concern!

Therefore, at the heart of Patterson’s response to Rohn is a misrepresentation of Rohn’s concerns.

Point 3

The Evangelist is directed to command the rich to give generously to lay up treasure in heaven. He is to be persuasive in doing this so that people can be saved. Christians are a product of someone else’s financial sacrifice to plant a church. (2 Corinthians 8, 1 Timothy 6:17-19)

While it is true that the “financial sacrifice” of Christians may lead to the salvation of others, in the ICC’s case, it is sadly ironic that their forceful pushing of members to be financially sacrificial has led many leaving the church (which also denotes a falling away from Christ in the ICC’s perspective), many of whom not being “rich” in relation to the society they live in.

In a month prior to Rohn’s resignation, his wife Mandee wrote a letter to John Causey which expressed her grave concerns about the tactics employed by the ICC to raise money and how many have left as a result, including the weak, the young and the vulnerable.

While generous financial giving and fundraising are good to do, I believe the tactics as currently practiced have been proven harmful by both past and present. If I’m completely honest, much of the approach to the collecting of special missions feels both coercive and oppressive…. I have been around long enough to know that many have fallen away over this, and the casualties include the weak, young, vulnerable, and also a decent amount of leaders. Though their qualms were likely not limited to the approach to special missions, it is by & large a contributing factor.

Mandee Rohn’s letter to John Causey (dated 18th November 2022)

Point 4

God himself had specific requirements and amounts he required his people to give. We are to be imitators of God. (Leviticus, Ephesians 5:1)

It’s amusing how the entire book of Leviticus was brought up as a proof text. To be fair, in the OT God did give commands that are very specific to His people. However, they were never burdensome. God’s people only felt the burden when Israel’s leaders decided to add to what was commanded.

Listen to the words of Jesus in rebuke of the Pharisees:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

Matt 24:1-4 NIV

Point 5

Nehemiah told the officials they needed to collect what was to be given to the priesthood. (Nehemiah 13:11)

The context of Nehemiah 13:11 is that Israel had previously promised to “not neglect the house of the Lord” (Neh 10:39), but they failed to fulfill what they had promised by withholding their tithes for the temple ministry. This left Nehemiah furious and made him rebuke the officials who were in charge of this.

Moreover, tithes are relative to what one has. It is not a fixed amount that they are pressured to give.

Point 6

The church is a family. From the basic family model, we can learn much about how the church operates. The dad may decide there is a financial need in the family and ask his teenage sons to work.

In a healthy family, you’d expect the father to do this in a reasonable manner without exasperating their children. But, in a dysfunctional family, the father may end up over-burdening their children.

So the bigger question is whether the ICC is a healthy family or a dysfunctional one.

Point 7

Jesus commanded the disciples to feed the 5000. He didn’t give some vague, “whatever number your heart feels like feeding.” He wanted every need met. Jesus knew the number goal instructing them to sit in groups of 50. (Luke 9:10-17)

What a strange passage to use as a proof-text! In the story, Jesus gave the apostles more than enough to feed the 5000 having 12 basketfuls left over (Luke 9:17)!

I’ve heard of many stories coming out of the ICC that members had to regularly skip meals in order to give into the financial demands of the church. That is very different to what we see in Luke 9.

Point 8

The widow of Zarephath was going to die with her son as they had their last meal. The man of God commanded her to give a meal for him first and then their family. It was a call to faith and specific. (1 Kings 17:7-16)

Again, what a strange passage to use as a proof-text. Elijah in the story is a prefiguring of Jesus Christ, and it’s meant to show God’s grace towards Gentiles who have faith (as opposed to faithless Israel) in God’s chosen messenger. At that time, it was Elijah. In our time, it is Jesus Christ – not Kip McKean!

Point 9

A widow had nothing, and the creditors would take her sons. The prophet directed her to go around and ask for jars (ancient fundraising). He told her specifically not to ask for a few. She obeyed, and God allowed the oil to flow until no jars were left, and she could pay all her debts. (2 Kings 4:1-7)

Similar to the previous point, the story of Elisha and the widow is, again, meant to point us to Jesus. It has nothing to do with fundraising, but in Jesus’ ability to pay the debt that we cannot pay (Colossians 2:13-14).

[Update 6th January 2023 – added Point 10 below]

Point 10

Jesus called us to give up everything already. A call from a man of God to give up something for the Lord should never be an issue of compulsion when we have already surrendered everything to Christ in baptism. If there is compulsion, we might be trying to hold onto something (Luke 14:33).

I would like to make three comments about this.

Firstly, while it is true that everything that belongs to the Christian is the Lord’s, it ought to be the individual’s prayerful response to God that determines the amount they give to the church.

In 2 Corinthians 9:7, it says, “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” Therefore, it is not enough to simply and blindly heed the call from a preacher to give things up for God, when the Bible commands individuals to be prayerful and mindful about it.

Secondly, in the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11, the reason why this couple was struck down by God wasn’t because they withheld a portion of their property sale to the church. It was because they lied that they have given everything.

³ Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? ⁴ Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

Acts 5:3-4 NIV

Peter actually says to Ananias that the money from the property sale was actually “at your disposal”. It was rightly his! (“Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold?”) There is no obligation that he must give every penny of the sale to the church – or even sell it in the first place. Rather, the real problem was that he lied that he has given everything when he actually hasn’t, perhaps for his and his wife’s own glory. He would’ve remained alive if he had simply and honestly told the apostles that he kept a portion for himself.

Thirdly, it should be noted that giving to the church isn’t the only way in which a Christian gives to God.

The ICC seems to have created a false dilemma: either you give to the church or you’re giving it to your own idols.

This is definitely not true.

Say, if you see a needy person on the street and you pay for his/her food, you’re really giving to God but bypassing the church.

Similarly, in the OT the people of God are called to be generous to their needy neighbours (eg. such as leaving grain behind for the poor and foreigners to reap – Leviticus 23:22). This bypasses the need to go through the temple system, but you’re still giving to God nevertheless.

This raises big questions for the ICC leadership. If the church simply takes excessive amounts of money, supposedly for “missions”, then where does that leave room for personal generosity and missions towards our neighbours? Or even to provide for our families (1 Timothy 5:8)?

Conclusion

Judging by the analysis of his arguments above, it is clear that Mike Patterson has resorted to stretching Scripture out of their context in order to justify his church’s overbearing policies on fundraising, as well as their continued condemnation of the Rohn family on this matter. May he also be woken up to the reality that the ICC’s practices are also hurting the people under his care in Boston, especially those who are vulnerable and lack the ability to speak up for themselves.