The reason for this document is to provide a high-level doctrinal argument as to why, on October 18, 2024, 1,554 members of the International Christian Churches, including nearly 30 Evangelists/Women’s Ministry Leaders and several Shepherding couples, saw a biblical mandate to separate and form a new church: the Restored Church Worldwide.

Since that time, we have held open Q&A forums in places such as London, England; Mexico; New York City; Phoenix; Manila, Philippines; Dallas–Fort Worth; and Los Angeles. After these events and literally hundreds of personal conversations with members of our former fellowship, we have found that the convictions recorded in this document have helped provide a clear understanding of our stance and the actions we took.

Tragically, since that time, much slander and countless accusations have also been propagated around the world. There have been unbiblical and sinful campaigns aimed at assassinating the character of RCW leaders and members, judging the motives of our hearts with claims such as that we are simply a group of selfishly ambitious people and that this is why we started the RCW. Sadly, this widespread judgment and condemnation of our hearts has come from people who, for the most part, had little to no personal relationship with us.

Such judgment goes directly against 1 Corinthians 4:5, which explicitly tells us not to judge one another’s perceived “motives,” but to leave that judgment to God. This document will clearly present the foundational doctrinal reasons why, biblically, we believed we had to start a new family of churches. We hope it will provide guidance and clarity for anyone who has felt confused or manipulated by toxic smear campaigns.

Additionally, this document should be easier to digest, as it is less than half the length of our original Open Letter to the ICC Leadership, which we published upon our departure.

1. Unbiblical Application of Centralized Leadership

About three weeks after the split on October 18, 2024, I met with the former central leader of the International Christian Church. During that meeting, he expressed, for the first time, his desire to be part of RCW. I took the opportunity to explain three areas where I believed central leadership had been biblically misapplied during the formation of the World Sector Leader (WSL) group in 2014 and how those same foundational issues shaped the ICC movement.

First: The Purpose of Centralized Leadership

The ICC’s central leadership structure was not established with the biblical understanding that its primary purpose is to uphold and govern God’s Word on a broad scale.

In Exodus 18:15–22 (the Jethro Principle), we see that the purpose of appointing leaders over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens was to enable Moses to shepherd God’s people by teaching them His decrees and instructions. As verse 18 explains, Moses could not “handle it alone,” so qualified leaders were appointed to share in the work. Verse 16 defines what that work was: informing God’s people of His laws, duties, and instructions. This is the biblical purpose of centralized leadership.

Fast-forward to the New Testament, and we see in Acts 15:13–19 that the purpose of central leadership is perfectly upheld by James and the Jerusalem Council. It is often said that James made the final ruling at the Jerusalem Council. However, if you examine the passage, it shows that Scripture, not James, made the final ruling. James simply fulfilled his role as the central leader by appealing directly to the prophets’ writings. He quotes Amos 9:11–12, which served as the basis for the decision on Gentile membership. James understood, dating back to Exodus 18, that the very purpose of his role was to uphold God’s Word on a broad scale, and that is exactly what he does.

This illustrates the biblical function of centralized leadership: regardless of cost or pressure, leaders are called to uphold Scripture rather than the personal desires of the top group.

This understanding is pivotal because when the WSL group was originally formed, each member received a hand-carved goblet from the ICC central leader, engraved with the words “We are family till the end.” This was intended to promote unity. However, it also became the group’s established foundational purpose: to uphold and protect the group at all costs, rather than the Scriptures. Over time, the group’s loyalty increasingly centered on protecting one another rather than allowing Scripture to remain the final authority. In practice, the WSL group’s final say became the church’s highest authority.

From a human perspective, I can understand why this happened. The former ICC central leader believed that if the WSLs simply remained “family till the end,” they would avoid repeating the painful fragmentation of the WSL group that had occurred in the previous movement, the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). However, because the structure was built largely in reaction to past failures rather than on a clearly biblical foundation, its purpose became distorted.

The departure of those who formed the RCW was not due to the sin exposed in several of the WSLs. Rather, those situations exposed a much deeper doctrinal problem and explained what many ICC leaders had experienced over a decade: whenever Scripture conflicted with the desires or consensus of the WSL group, Scripture was repeatedly set aside to preserve the group’s unity and agenda. Why did it function that way? Because the biblical doctrine of centralized leadership was applied in an unbiblical way.

About one month after the current ICC Central Leader took office, approximately five months before the RCW split, it was exposed that one of the WSLs had grossly disqualified himself. It was discovered that he and his wife had terribly neglected those they directly mentored, failing to have discipling times, even for years in some cases. They were also violating serious financial protocols. There were numerous accounts of harshness, including yelling and screaming at those under their leadership. Worst of all, it was corroborated that this WSL couple was rarely attending their own church services. It was estimated that, between Sunday services, staff meetings, and midweek services, they attended meetings of the body only 10 to 15 times total in an entire year.

When this came to light in late May 2024, there was a consensus among the new ICC Central Leader, myself, and all of the WSL shepherds that this couple no longer met the biblical qualifications of an overseer as described in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and therefore had to be removed from their roles as World Sector Leaders. We had several meetings discussing the matter. Scriptures were read, and I pleaded with the group to let the Bible be the standard and to remove this leader from his role. Everyone involved agreed.

Yet sadly, when the matter was presented before the WSL group as a whole, the corruption we had seen for nearly a decade tragically continued. Once again, the Bible’s standard was cast aside to uphold the group’s desires.

After the ICC central leader went against what he had promised and against the Bible in that decision, several leaders, including myself, met personally with the ICC central leader, along with the WSL shepherds, and carefully presented biblical reasons why the decision should be reversed. We pleaded for Scripture to remain the standard. However, the decision stood.

From my perspective, this revealed the underlying doctrinal problem: the WSL group never had the understanding woven into its DNA that its primary responsibility was to uphold Scripture. Instead, it increasingly drifted into a distorted, unbiblical form of unity whose highest priority was preserving the top leadership group itself.

Second: Leadership Was No Longer Based on Biblical Capability

Another concern involved the understanding that membership within the WSL group would remain largely unaffected by ministry effectiveness. During the formation of the group back in 2014, the former ICC central leader made it clear that poor performance, even over many years, would not result in removal from the role unless accompanied by major sin or destructive disunity.

This directly contradicts the Jethro Principle, which requires appointing capable leaders (Exodus 18:21). It also goes against the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30), which teaches how roles and responsibilities should be attained in God’s Kingdom: by being faithful with a few things so that we can then be entrusted with more. This means multiplying what we have already been entrusted with. The ICC WSL group was literally built in the opposite fashion. We would take from church leaders who were multiplying what had been entrusted to them, only to give it to incapable leaders simply because they held a position in the church.

About eight months before the split, the ICC Central Leader at that time told me that he had completely lost confidence in nearly all of the WSLs. Yet rather than reassigning them according to their biblical capability, out of sentimentality for the WSLs, he sought to place capable leaders underneath incapable WSLs in hopes that he could “build around” them. This created a David-and-Saul-type relationship, where insecure WSLs resented the more capable leaders under them. This frequently created unhealthy dynamics in which gifted leaders became frustrated while insecure leaders felt threatened. It also went directly against Luke 6:40, which says that a student cannot be above his teacher.

Instead of allowing Scripture to determine leadership roles, sentimentality often prevailed. As a result, leadership effectiveness declined, insecurity increased, and ministry growth stagnated.

Over time, a destructive culture developed in which declining ministries were praised for emphasizing character, while fruitful ministries were viewed with suspicion and accused of having improper motives. This reflects the warning of Isaiah 5:20 against calling evil good and good evil.

Consequently, many members spent years in stagnant ministries without ever experiencing the kind of healthy, evangelistically fruitful churches described throughout the Book of Acts.

Third: Anointed Leadership

“The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the LORD’s anointed, or lay my hand on him; for he is the anointed of the LORD.” – 1 Samuel 24:6

In the Old Testament, there were anointed leaders, meaning they were chosen directly by God and had a divine right to hold the office of king, prophet, or central leader for their lifetime. The former ICC central leader preached for years that he was a Davidic figure, meaning that he was God’s man for this generation. He compared himself to David, saying that David, because of his sin, lost the kingdom as a form of God’s discipline. However, because David was God’s man, the kingdom was restored to him through his triumph over Absalom (2 Samuel 15-19). In the same way, the former ICC central leader taught that, because of his sin, he lost his leadership role in the International Church of Christ (ICOC). However, because he believed he was God’s man for this generation, he believed God restored the Kingdom to him by once again making him the Central Leader of the International Christian Church.

Again, I believe that, in an effort to build a sense of security and stability within the WSL group, he wove the teaching of “anointed leadership” into their roles as well, which effectively made them irremovable from their positions. This was demonstrated on several occasions when ICCM started. During students’ first semester, as you may know, they would stand up, and the former ICC central leader would ask them what their kingdom dream was. On several occasions, a young leader said that his dream was to become a World Sector Leader one day. The former ICC central leader was quoted as responding, “Well, you’re going to have to wait for one of them to die.”

On another occasion, I personally spoke with the former ICC Central Leader, asking him to take action against a WSL who was teaching false doctrine. In that conversation, he expressed his conviction, based on the scripture above, that he should not touch “the Lord’s anointed,” meaning that he would allow God to remove him from his role, just as David had done with Saul. Also, if you look at the current ICC churches’ Articles of Incorporation, you’ll see that they state each church’s submission to the authority of the “anointed” World Sector Leaders.

Here is the problem: biblically, we do not believe in anointed leadership after the apostolic era. No one in Christ’s Church today should be considered a king or prophet as they were in the Old Testament, and only someone who physically walked with Jesus could be an Apostle (Acts 1:21–22).

We believe in appointed leadership, not anointed leadership. In Matthew 16:17-19 Peter received the keys to the kingdom and was later removed as the central leader, yet the Bible does not even tell us why. However, even the first Central Leader of Christ’s Church did not have a divine right to remain in his role for the duration of his life. Likewise, I believe God has called me to serve as the Central Leader of the RCW at this time, but I do not believe that I have a divine right to remain in this role for the rest of my life.

This unbiblical doctrine created a toxic double standard between the WSLs and every other leadership role. If any other leader had attended only a couple of services each year, neglected discipling times for years, ignored financial protocols, and been consistently abusive, that leader would have been removed immediately. But because those disqualifications were committed by an “anointed” WSL, nothing was done. The ripple effect of this false teaching cannot be overstated. It literally affected every disciple in every church, whether they realized it or not!

Many who left and even became persecutors might still be in the Kingdom today if the WSLs had been held to the same biblical standards as the rest of us.

2. Unbiblical Generational Impact

“If you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard, and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven” – Colossians 1:23

Here, Paul makes the triumphant declaration that, approximately 31–33 years after the Church began in Acts 2, the known world of his day had been evangelized by the Church, for Christ. When combined with scriptures such as Matthew 28:18–20, Mark 16:15, Acts 1:8, Acts 20:24, Acts 17:6, Colossians 1:6, 1 Timothy 2:3, Haggai 2:7, Revelation 7:9, and many others, it becomes very clear that the purpose of the Church is to evangelize the nations in its generation.

Other scriptures, such as Acts 2:41, Acts 4:4, Acts 5:14, Acts 6:1, Acts 6:7, Acts 9:31, Acts 12:24, Acts 17:6, Acts 19:20, and Acts 21:20, demonstrate the amazing advancement in achieving that mission by the first-century Church and the gospel’s generational power.

In 2023, when I became the leader of the ICC’s Jerusalem Church in Los Angeles, I was given access to all of the ICC’s statistics dating back to 2007. Currently, the WSLs are the only ones with access to these statistics, and they have kept them very private because they are quite concerning.

In the early summer of 2024, I conducted a deep analysis of the ICC’s statistics and found that the movement had maintained a steady annual growth rate of only 6–8% for about a decade. When I projected that growth rate over 30 years (one generation) from the ICC’s 2007 inauguration, it showed that by the year 2037, the ICC would have a total worldwide membership of only about 28,000 disciples. At that moment, I was devastated because I realized that the ICC, the organization to which I had dedicated nearly two decades of my life, was never going to have the kind of generational global impact we had all dreamed of when we started it, and it was in no way reflective of the movement we see in the Book of Acts.

Today, after 20 years, the ICC has about 11,000 disciples in 131 churches. In comparison, the ICOC, over the same amount of time, had 135,000 disciples in 393 churches. The ICC had not reached even a tenth of the worldwide membership and had 65% fewer churches than the ICOC.

Before the split, when I brought this up to the current ICC central leader, he brushed it off, saying the world was “more open in the 80s and 90s,” as if the harvest was just not as plentiful as it once was (Matthew 9:37). When I pressed further, pointing out the lukewarmness of ICC churches, he told me I souldn’t say that and instead attributed LA’s growth to my “abnormal talent.” I told him plainly that John 15:3–8 shows the real issue: the Word has not remained in the ICC leaders, and that’s why they were not bearing “much fruit.” I had a similar conversation with the WSL of Southeast Asia, and sadly, both were only concerned that ICC disciples would hear about the state of things.

The truth is that, at the time of the split, the ICC’s top leadership had stopped holding to the biblical standards we call people to when we first study the Bible with them. Many WSLs had stopped attending midweek services, and one hardly attended church at all. Others didn’t show up for their own staff meetings, and the list goes on. Months after I moved to LA for Operation Jerusalem, two different WSLs tried to convince me that I didn’t need to go to midweek anymore because of my high position in leadership. I immediately rejected that, saying, “If we’re going to call people to these standards when we study the Bible with them, then we’ve got to hold to them as well!” This hypocrisy and lukewarmness trickled down throughout the entire movement. The current tragic reality is that 85–90% of ICC churches are dying, and since 2024, over 30 churches have either left the ICC fellowship or closed their doors completely.

In contrast, in the 20 months since starting the RCW, God has multiplied our family of churches from 1,554 disciples in 10 churches to almost 3,100 disciples in 25 churches. Lord willing, if we simply grow at 35% annually, which is less than our current growth rate, we will have over 53,000 disciples globally in just 10 years. In 20 years, we would have over one million disciples worldwide, and that would be at a lower growth rate than we experienced last year. That’s not to say that we’re better. It’s simply to say that we haven’t compromised our life or doctrine, and that’s why we are bearing much fruit.

“Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” — Matthew 7:20

3. The ICC Has Mutated into an Oligarchy

For many years during my time in the ICC, others and I hypothesized about what would happen to the ICC’s leadership structure when its former Central Leader passed away or stepped down. The question was always whether one of the WSLs would truly be able to lead the movement and transition from being a peer among the group of WSLs to becoming its true Central Leader. Well, that question has been answered. The reality is that the ICC’s current central leader does not have the authority to make real reforms, and as a result, world sectors have become more and more autonomous. After many accounts of disciples currently in the ICC fellowship, the top leadership has become emblematic of Judges 21:25, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.” This is paramount, as without a Central Leader, world evangelism eventually becomes gridlocked because no one has the authority to call the churches worldwide to make the sacrifices needed to advance the gospel. Additionally, the ability to address issues within the church becomes compromised because there is no one at the top who can truly enforce biblical standards or make changes amongst its leaders. As a result, God’s people become like sheep without a shepherd (Numbers 27:17).

Just recently, one of the WSLs was demoted from his position. It has been reported that the World Sector Leader group actually took a vote to make the final ruling on the matter, which makes it clear that the ICC is functioning as an oligarchy. A drastic drop in the ability to raise Special Missions, the loss of consistent standards on core matters such as “Meeting of the Body,” the whitewashing of mission teams being sent out, and a growing disparity in church culture from one church to the next are all symptoms that functional autonomy is increasingly shaping the governance of the ICC fellowship. As a result, the ICC’s top leadership has effectively mutated into a plurality of leaders, or an oligarchy.

In closing, these are three foundational doctrinal reasons why we started the RCW. Of course, there were several other contributing factors, which we elaborate on in our Open Letter to the ICC Leadership, available on faiththefacts.com. Anyone who claims that RCW was simply a matter of people following their preferred leadership, or that we are just a bunch of selfishly ambitious people, is either not being intellectually honest or has become so spiritually corrupted that they would say anything to preserve their establishment.

If anyone has any further questions, please feel free to message me or any of the other RCW Central Council leaders on Facebook. We would be happy to discuss these matters with you further.

All for a lost world,
Jason Dimitry & The RCW Central Council