Analysis of the 2003 Letter to the International Churches of Christ

The letter was written by Henry Kriete in early 2003, and also goes under the names “the 2003 Letter”, “the Kriete Letter”, or simply “The Letter”. The actual title is “Honest to God” with a subtitle of “Revolution through repentance and freedom in Christ”. It’s a 39-page dissertation of the state of the church under the leadership of Kip McKean, the founder and Lead Evangelist of the church up until 2003. Recently, in 2021, the church created website that chronicles the church from the 70’s to the present, icochistory.org, and here “The Letter” can be found.

Perhaps it’s presumptuous for me to call this an analysis for the whole church, as I am a mere non-staff volunteer church member and cannot speak for the whole church. I have been a member of the ICOC for 31 years as of the writing of this article, therefore I did live through the 90’s and early 2000’s, the time over which of the Letter and it’s fallout occurred. I would go so far as to say this is analysis from a small-church perspective. The Letter was addressed to the whole church, but as Henry Kriete hailed from the large church of London, it is somewhat from a large-church perspective. Nevertheless the Letter spread and affected all churches large and small and in the US, Europe and abroad.

Just how the Letter spread is not entirely certain; what is clear is some of those to whom it was originally shared passed it on to others who shared it and so forth. What has been told is that the author of the letter shared it with the leadership of the church in London and then an Elder who was present started sharing it with other Elders throughout the church. Had the problems addressed by the 39-page letter not resonated ubiquitously throughout the church, it would have fizzled out quickly. Instead, it spread like wildfire.

To say that the letter impacted the church would be an understatement. Indeed the word “upheaval” better describes it. Many among the present-day membership disagree with how it was disseminated, but given the environment and culture of the church, I don’t know how else it could have been shared and have reached the whole church. Surely the prescribed Biblical channels would not have worked for the very reasons discussed in the letter. In addition, the Internet was still young and social media didn’t exist. Precisely how the Letter spread throughout the church is therefore irrelevant at this point and lies in the categories “caused by God” or “allowed by God”. What is clear is that the real problems, whatever they were, were systemic and rooted in the way the church had been constructed and in those who had laid its foundation.

Problems Identified

The two primary high-level problems addressed in the letter can be summarized by the control of individuals and the control of churches. Control over individuals began right from when a potential convert studied the Bible with members of the church. Members all went through a standardized study series and continued thereafter under a sort of standardized discipleship. Control over churches was exerted via statistics, hierarchical discipleship of large churches over small ones, and the church-wide management over staffing.

Four systemic evils were given for the problems followed by four additional problems:

1. A corrupted hierarchy.
2. An obsession with numbers and statistics.
3. A shameful level of arrogance (said to be caused by 1 and 2) and “total distrust of outside criticism. Go
4. “Our seduction by mammon”, meaning an unhealthy attraction to money in the staff.
5. The lack of elderships and an inverted authority in the few elderships which did exist.
6. Problems in the Gospel message and a general lack of grace transmitted in the church’s study series and via sermons. “We have become a System”, and “the structural evils that helped foster them must be theologically exposed and denounced”.
7. General rejection and disdain for outside input and guidance from outside the ICOC and even a rejection from its own teachers for what is considered outside the permitted messaging. “We have universally maligned our critics, and tried to protect our members from reading ‘spiritual pornography’. Other materials are also censored from widespread circulation—brilliant and Scripturally insightful papers from some of our own teachers among them. Papers that have gone against the party line.”
8. High membership and staff and turnover. The high membership turnover was explained away by the rapid spread and charged message of the church. The high turnover of staff was explained away by the high pressure and expectations of an evangelist spreading God’s word.

Things that have changed

The present day ICOC is radically different from what it had evolved into in the 1990s and early 2000s. Whereas it had shared several characteristics of a cult (but was not one), namely, the elevation of its leader/founder to saint-like status, a high degree of control and accountability of its members, and a total distrust of outside criticism, these no longer persist since shortly after the letter was released and processed by the church.

Going through the 8-item list of problems above, below are ways those particular problems having been resolved.

1. In 2004, its founder, Kip McKean was ousted from leadership and ultimately left the church and started another church of his own, the ICC. Larger churches no longer control the staff and Boards of smaller churches. One can choose their disciplers (accountability partners) and advice from a discipler is considered advice and not mandatory.
2. Statistics are no longer kept, starting very close to the release of letter. No one liked taking stats, anyway, and several staff leaders had been caught fudging their numbers. Total attendance and membership are the only stats presently kept.
3. “A total distrust of outside criticism”, has changed in that books from outside authors are frequently used and recommended, and outside church leaders sometimes speak churches and conferences.
4. Churches now use a standardized model, like the Hay model, to determine salaries based on parameters like the size of one’s congregation and the size of their family.
5. This is an area of minimal repentance. The Letter itself did not appreciate the degree to which the lack of Biblical elderships (by Biblical I mean the proper qualifications and the proper authority) contributed to and allowed the systemic issues presented therein. More on this later.
6. While “grace” is something that cannot be measured, I would say there is a greater degree of grace in the church. Unlike the 90’s where there was only one “approved” study series, there are now more than ten from various churches and teachers. In my opinion, the role of the indwelling Holy Spirit is not understood or stressed enough, and hopefully the church will grow in this.
7. There has been some repentance in this area. Books not authored by ICOC authors probably outnumber those from ICOC authors. Speakers and pastors from churches outside the organization occur sporadically, and leaders sometime join general evangelical and Christian conferences. Some efforts have been made to repair relations with the traditional Church of Christ.
8. It’s difficult to gauge the last item in the absence of statistics, some statistics can be useful, especially the number and reasons why people leave the church. The number of people who leave the church has definitely gone down. The number of those entering the church has also gone down. The church as a whole began to grow again in 2007; therefore, this is a sign of repentance in this area.

Still Missing: The NT Leadership Model

What still must be learned from the 2003 Henry Kriete letter to the ICOC? The church is indeed very different and has a much more livable, viable church environment. In my opinion, the area which needed the most change in the 1990’s and continues to need big change is the adoption of the New Testament leadership model. Although the church set out to imitate the 1st century church—dedicated not only to the written Biblical commands but also to imitating the precedents and models set forth—somehow, it failed to mature by appointing teachers, deacons, and elders. The appointment of these roles and their qualifications and purposes are written instructions in the Bible, yet most churches only have ersatz teachers, deacons, and elders. They have not taken the time nor seen the need to make official appointments of Biblically-qualified individuals.

Why didn’t the church of the 90’s and why doesn’t the church in the present follow the Bible and appoint qualified men to these positions? First, I should say the church of the 90’s did have some elders who were instrumental in changing the leadership after the Letter. Secondly, the present church now has even more, but most of them are in large churches in the US. As of the writing of this, the church worldwide has nearly 240 elders, but only around 40 of them are in churches outside the US.

Besides the number of elders church wide, one must also consider the authority of those elders. The NT model is clear that elders have authority over evangelists. In the 90’s, this was in question but this was ultimately resolved, having much to do with the 2003 Letter.

It’s not just about elders. In the current church, there must be a Biblical conviction that churches must mature and, in addition to elders, appoint deacons, and teachers. I would describe the conviction as more of a “nice to have”. In other words, if things happen to work out where after a couple of decades, a church has qualified people then we’ll appoint them. I believe the correct conviction is that appointing these positions is a long-term priority equal to growing the church through evangelism. Not prioritizing these positions, in fact, is evidenced by a church not growing. Without the necessary oversight and protection, a balance will be reached where those leaving the church equals those coming in. If more emphasis is put on evangelism, then those leaving will also increase. The church will ultimately reach a place of slow growth matched by slow attrition.

A church’s conviction on NT Leadership model can be easily measured by whether they’ve appointed deacons, the simplest of the roles. Mentioned in Phil 1:1 and defined in 1Tim 3:8-12 (the only two passages to mention them), the word deacon is transliterated from the Greek διάκονος (di-akon-os) which simply means servant. Transliteration has a way of creating new religious concepts. As a result, some theologians do not think it is a real position. I disagree because anyone can serve, but 1Tim 3 is describing a position with qualifications. I believe that in the NT church, all need to serve in some capacity, but the church should appoint mature, stable disciples as deacons to lead groups of other servants in critical ministries within the church. Whether deacons are an official position or not, for churches wishing to emulate the 1st century church, they must appoint deacons.

What is in Store for the Church?

Naturally, only God knows but God established the roles in the church because of the great needs within the church—and these needs exist regardless of whether the roles for which they serve have been filled. If only a ministerial couple exists, they will be responsible for everything. For within the church are all the benefits and stresses of family (raising kids, education, dating, marriage, sickness and death), friendship (support, boundaries, communication, care, fun), business (contribution, buildings, boards, legal), and religion (salvation, sin, repentance, worship, leadership).

The autonomy of churches can also delay the implementation of the NT leadership model, especially in small and non-first-world congregations. Without firm direction from a parent church, unguided churches may not even know they need to plan and implement the model, let alone have deep convictions about it. My hope is that larger first-world churches that have implemented the NT leadership model will take a more active role in guiding less mature ones.