Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 1

Several International church sites
All Nations * Boston * Bay Area* Brasília * Budapest* Chicago* Glasgow * Greater Atlanta * Greater Baltimore * Greater Las Vegas* Hong Kong * Kansas City * Los Angeles * Lexington * Limassol * Madrid * Mexico* Milano * Montréal* Nashville * New York* New Orleans* Novosibirsk * Philadelphia * Savannah * Seoul* Seattle * Sofia * Springfield * St. Petersburg * Sydney * Taiwan * Tokyo * Toronto * Winnipeg* Vladivostok

You can't be serious.
"They are now trying to spread the good news" Is that a joke? This is the reason I left Wiki, this whole article is nothing but bias Propaganda. People on self crusades ruin Wiki.

Removed section on "Kip McKean's new movement"
I took out this section, because all of this is very well covered in Kip McKean, and is not germane to the scope of this article. (which is the church itself, not the further adventures of those once connected to the church). Furthermore, labeling Mr. McKean's current church a "movement" is a topic already discussed at length on WP. An entry on the "Portland Movement" was deleted by consensus, for while McKean and his followers would like to portray it as a sequel to the "Boston Movement," the numbers do not yet support that conclusion.

I just looked up Kip Mckean and saw only two small paragraphs!! How is that informative. Why is there nothing on the subject of International churches of christ. And Why is it not stated that the former international churches of christ are disowning that name changing there name to church of christ?

-why deny who the founder of the International Church of Christ denomination is?


 * ICOC is not a denomination like Church of Christ ( Campbellites ) ICOC are autonomous, non-denominational christian congregations. Okay?

Pleather, good edits, but one
Pleather, thanks for the good edits ([]), but I had one comment: you removed the section on salvation. I agree that it was worded in a sermon-esk and not NPOV, but I believe it should still be included as "What the ICOC believes salvation intails", or something like that. It is a good overview of what is taught at the core, and I can say pretty safely that 99% of the ICOC churches preach this exact thing. It is the application of these things that changes from church to church -- discipling, etc. What do you think? Rob 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cordial inquiry. Let me explain: It was removed because there was nothing distinctive about it. It is impossible to differentiate ICoC from thousands of other Christian assemblies on the basis of their definition of "salvation". This was the stated criteria:


 * 1) Hearing the Word of God
 * 2) Believing the Word
 * 3) Repenting of one's sins
 * 4) Agreeing, and confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord
 * 5) Being baptized by full immersion
 * 6) Persevering to the end


 * As definitions of "salvation" go, this is unremarkable. The only thing keeping it from being utterly generic is the call for full-immersion baptism; a doctrinal point shared by hundreds of thousands of congregations.


 * Our goal here is not to document every point of ICoC doctrine, only those that distinguish and substantially differentiate the church from others. I hope this clarifies things.--Pleather 23:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

True enough. Rob 03:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The salvation section in Church of Christ article there it is okay, but here it isn't okay. Why? --TransylvanianKarl 11:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not addressing the | Church of Christ article. I'm addressing this one. If you want to remove the "salvation" section there based on the same criteria I stated here, you'd probably have my support. Up until a few days ago, I had no idea either of these organizations existed. I'm just trying to bring some  encyclopedic standards to an article that has been an emotionally-charged battleground in the past.  Karl, I think you'll find that that line of logic (if x is in article y, why can't it be in article z?) proves to be not too productive in the context of Wikipedia; it's impossible to improve every article simultaneously. You gotta pick 'em one at a time, and go from there. Me, I picked this one, precisely because I'm a disinterested party, and feel that particular perspective could be useful here. Hope you'll share my optimistic spirit. --Pleather 17:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. I have no wish to revisit this old ground, but I notice that while the article mentions discipling it mentions nothing of falling away, how you were to treat people who have left the church. While I may have missed it, I can assure you that the fear of falling away was a pretty important aspect of life in ICoC back in the '90's, especially during the purge. This on its own would be OR and therefore no good, but anyone researching the subject may find it helpful.

oh, and further to this, every member of London Church of Christ preached and evangelised.

An open message to TransylvanianKarl
Karl - Wikipedia's biggest fault has sometimes been described as "the tyranny of the persistent". Please remember that other people will edit this article in ways that may displease you. It is very prideful to assert that you alone know what is best. Don't let yourself believe there is a "good" pride. Prove the ICOC is different today from in the past: Live what you profess. Zen611 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Zen611, do you have a particular edit in mind writing this? I would love to see it. Rob 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving in Progress
This page is now 128 kilobytes long, which is longer than preferable. I will be breaking it off into archives later on today. In the meantime, please place notices at the TOP of this page, rather than forcing others to scroll all the way down to the bottom. Chronology will be restored when the archive is in place. --Pleather 17:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Neutral Zone
Many people have tried to force a particular perspective on this article. While you may be personally convinced of the righteousness of your views, please understand that this is NOT a pulpit, or a forum for convincing anyone of anything. It is--or rather, needs to become--a straightforward, dispassionate statement of documented, provable facts. Before contributing, please take the time to read WP:NPOV, and understand that these principles will be upheld here.

In general, here are some tactics you might want to avoid, as they will likely be immediately challenged as clear signposts of POV extremes:


 * Use of Biblical quotations. In talking about the activities of Christians as Christians, it is to be assumed that their actions have a basis in an interpretation of Biblical passages. However, it is not in the scope of this article to elaborate on particular passages, or their interpretation. Past contributors have tried to "prove" or "disprove" points by inserting what they imagine to be relevant quotations from Scripture, but this is simply adding a layer of interpretation to intrepretation. In almost all cases, this does nothing but make the article less encyclopedic.


 * Extensive evocations of the buzzword "cult". It is fair to report that ex-members of the church are organized and vociferous in their denunciation of the ICoC as a "cult". It is also fair to point out that leaders in the Church of Christ have apologized for their previous use of the word "cult" in reference to the ICoC. However, this is no place to prove or disprove any such allegations, only to document them.


 * Phraseology meaningless outside of the context of the church. Terminology such as "church plantings in the pure word", or "alive in the spirit" or "reborn in Christ" may be perfectly understandable to you, but they have little meaning to non-Christians, or even Christians outside your particular denomination.

Thanks! By the way, I have no affliation with this church, or any groups critical of the church. In fact, I have never heard of the ICoC outside of Wikipedia. My sole motivation is to make this article encyclopedic. I hope you'll join me in this quest.--Pleather 17:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Purported cult
This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC) 



1. The theology of the ICC more closely aligns with Fundamentalism than Evangelicalism.


 * literal interpretation of the Bible
 * proof-texting
 * anti-intellectual tendencies
 * tends to focus on a spiritual Gospel, rather than dealing with the whole person

Evangelicalism tends to be more holistic, dealing with social justice (like International Justice Missions) and worldwide prostitution problems, humanitarian aid (World Relief, World Vision), homes for the homeless (Habitat for Humanity), and so on, as well as being championing Christ as "the Incarnation of the Triune Godhead."

2. A cult is defined in terms of either a) theologically, having major aberrant doctrinal problems (e.g., differing with the Nicene Creed) or b) socio-psychologically, as a totalitarian / mind-controlling organization that has financial or recruitment ends and these ends justify whatever means.

The word hairesis is translated sect and is the root of our word, heresy (false teaching). It is not the same as the word (or meaning) as "cult".

It is my opinion that the ICC is significantly off in Bible interpretation and application.

Is this still a "stub"? There's lots more here than there is about many, perhaps most, similarly-sized denominations.

Rlquall 12:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that the 3-on-1 "bible studies" aren't mentioned anywhere in the article. My experience with the group (in the Cincinnati area) showed that they try to break down a person's beliefs (by having two or three well-prepared people argue with the new guy, who was expecting a normal sort of bible study) and get that person to doubt everything they've been told, followed by encouraging that person to break ties with their family and friends, and a heavy focus on a viral sort of recruiting, which they call 'discipleship'. (It *would* be discipleship if they simply offered the information, rather than mentally beating a person with it in a controlled atmosphere, and repeatedly calling them afterward to have more "bible studies".)

Grouping of International Churches of Christ Churches
I think a revaluation of grouping International Churches of Christchurches together and the cult status may be in order. Some churches are almost not recognizable as “Boston Movement” Churches. Others still hold to the traditions of the pre-2003 International Churches of Christ. Those critical (Reveal.org) of the International Churches of Christ are preparing for a review.

Unfortunately, no real nomenclature has developed to identify the evolving branches. Perhaps this evolution is in too early a stage for fixed titles.

PSpadaro 16:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

If doctrinal discrepancies with the Nicene Creed are a factor in labeling a church a "cult" then my question would be: In what ways is the International Churches of Christ doctrine different than the Nicene Creed? Also, since a majority of evangelical Christianity does not “acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, a clear part of the Nicene Creed, why are they not labeled cults?

REVEAL 12:49, 14 Aug 2006

PSPadaro, seems like you are confused: most Evangelical Churches read from the Nicene Creed fairly regularly, they just don't knowledge YOUR interpretation of the word for.

Freedom and fundamentalism be poised in this Church.
This church is the middle ground between fundamentalism and freedom.--TransylvanianKarl 14:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes To External Links
I've moved the following links here:   From the Churches of Christ to the Boston Movement] by Russell R. Paden. May 1994 thesis from the University of Kansas. An essential and thoroughgoing analysis and comparison of the history and development of the Church of Christ and its offshoot ICOC or Boston Movement faction, including the characteristics of "historylessness" and "traditionlessness". From the Abstract: "This thesis argues that while the Boston Movement has introduced some practices that are foreign to and have origins outside the Churches of Christ, both bodies remain quite similar in doctrine and attitude. This conclusion is supported through an historical examination of the Churches of Christ and the Boston Movement detailing the forces that have shaped the attitudes and doctrines of both religious bodies."
 * Disciples Today A subscriber-supported web portal for those who are dedicated to following Jesus in our world today.
 * ICC Discussion Forum A free chat where ex-members debate ICOC issues in a mildly moderated forum
 * ICOCInvestigation.com Exposing the Financial Fraud of the International Churches of Christ
 * ICOC News Blog A blog of hot topics from ICC DF (above) and other discussion forums, from an ex-member perspective. Also contains numerous links to psychological studies, expose sites and other ICC-related web sites.



If you like to add these back in per External links, please discuss it here first. brenneman (t) (c) 12:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Further Discussion on External Links Moved
It would be good to have further explanation as to why the list of links were moved to the discussion page. I would like to see that list added back to the article under External Links section. Thanks. -ma

Hello! This is an abridged extract of relevent points from the link above:
 * Acceptable
 * Sites that point out truths about the ICOCs cultic recruiting methods
 * Sites that help former members heal from the damage this cult inflicted on them
 * Official sites.
 * Sites that have been cited or used as references.
 * A book or other text.
 * On multiple POV.
 * High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.
 * May be acceptable
 * Web directories.

I'm not averse to having each link to be added back in discussed with reference to these points. Shall we start at the top with "Disciples Today"? brenneman (t) (c) 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

New External Links: arguments for new links on article
In response to the above post: this list of links demonstrate various points of view, EG,
 * Acceptable
 * On multiple POV.

-ma

Ok, this is good. I wanted to discuss them individually because it is more managable, but I'm flexible. I've split the links out by your groupings into subsection, and refactored your comments for clarity (putting the links above). I've also added a "general comment" section at the bottom, and put a pseudo-sig after each comment of yours. If you fix anything up, replace this with your real sig. I haven't changed your text at all, so you probably want to go over it again to make sure it makes sense still (above/below, etc). I won't add any of my comments until you indicate that you're happy with the way I've moved things around (e.g. haven't changed your intent). It would be good if the actual links were in each section as well, to make it easier for latecomers. brenneman (t) (c) 01:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Current Members

 * Disciples Today A subscriber-supported web portal for those who are dedicated to following Jesus in our world today.
 * This site is from the perspective of current members. (Comment by ma)
 * From the About Us page at Disciples Today:


 * To inform, inspire, teach, unify and record the history of disciples of Jesus today. Our goal is connection of disciples and churches so that we might glorify God, mature as Christians, deepen our fellowship and accomplish God's dream for every person to have the opportunity for a relationship with him. To spread the word of Kip McKean, our cult leader.
 * To provide a comprehensive connection to relevant, verified and credible information about the International Churches of Christ, a family of churches that stretches around the world.
 * Now comparing this with About from icocinfo.org

A Comprehensive Information Source ICOC Info offers what I believe is the most comprehensive on-line collection of current data on membership in our fellowship of churches. More information on this effort to collect and maintain accurate church statistics can be found here. In addition, I hope this website will be a resource of all kinds of useful information for members and friends of our churches alike. To this end, I post links to church websites, contact information, and an event schedule.
 * This is two links supporting the same POV, and one should be chosen. brenneman (t) (c)  12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't think one site can be chosen over the other, since they have different (and complementary) types of content. They actually go together, I think. One page explains the beliefs, and the other site shows data. -ma

Mixed Perspective

 * ICC Discussion Forum The free "ICC DF," the largest and most diverse forum on the ICOC, has constantly updated debates on ICOC issues in a moderated forum.
 * While the aesthetics are shocking, this initally seemed like a good candidate for an alternative POV. The moderators are all claim to be either ex-members or to never have been members.  Unfortunately, the articles appear to be either wildly critical to the point of libel  (If Russ&Kip were deposed in a Lawsuit...) or personal attacks (Kip, How's Your Evangelism?). This is thus not a good candidate for an alternative POV, as it's a bit like the Chewbacca defense.  brenneman (t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * However the topics start, there are a good mix of members, never-members and ex-members who respond to these discussions. See "Staying to Support the ICoC", "What Keeps You Coming Back?,"and "What Is Missing In the Church?". -ma


 * ICOC Blogspot A blog of hot topics from ICC DF (above) and other discussion forums, by an ex-member. Also contains numerous links to psychological studies and other ICC-related web sites.
 * In these links, the ICC Discussion Forum offer mixed perspectives between former and current members, and others who are linked to the ICC in some way (family members, etc). It is the main ground for debates between current, ex-, etc. members and is representatively moderated. ICOC Blogspot summarizes "hot topics" from the ICC Discussion Forum. (Comment by ma)
 * I agree that this link should be on the main page. It is partly a nicer GUI to the link above, but does have a bit more coherence, as well as proving an excellent link-list.  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Great. I've moved this link over. -ma


 * ICOC News Unofficial news site covering the ICOC
 * A news site with mixed perspectives of current and ex-members. (Comment by ma)
 * From the Top 20 most viewed articles on this site:
 * 1) Chicago Repentance -- Steve Staten - (5559 reads)
 * 2) Marty Wooten Responds to Henry Kriete's Letter - (4280 reads)
 * 3) The ICOC Salaries Issue - (4021 reads)
 * 4) From Babylon to Zion: REVOLUTION THROUGH RESTORATION III - (3487 reads)
 * 5) LONDON DISCIPLES SPEAK IN REPLY TO KIP’S LETTER - (3435 reads)
 * 6) Research On Salaries - (3297 reads)
 * 7) San Francisco Letter To Members - (3287 reads)
 * Of these, only the sixth is critical or represents a different POV than those in the "Current Members" section. brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but I believe that only shows how many look to view articles about the claims to "reform" on this site. Most recently, this site also displays somewhat critical articles, but a "reforming" member perspective (my own term referring to those in "reforming" ICoCs). I'm on the border with this one because of the number of "pro-ICOC" announcements on this site.

Here's a quote that shows the perspective of this site's editor: [Discussing an article on dealing with the controversial past of the ICOC] I think omitting or revising our mistakes does us no good. Simply giving passing mention to them without actually dealing with them is counterproductive. However, I think it is just as bad to forget the good that came out of the ICOC ministries as it would be to mask the bad. There are those that want to say nothing wrong happened. There are those who claim because of some wrongs, all is wrong. There are also those that admit the wrongs but want to gloss over them. Despite what some claim, positive change is happening in former ICOC ministries. Truth is essential. The Bible says we need to be children of the light.

--ma 17:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Former Members

 * [<Cut out to keep talk page clean.> Research Examine Verify Educate Assist Liberate (REVEAL), an organization of former members of the ICOC
 * This link contains solely the perspective of former members. (Comment by ma)
 * Does not appear to have been updated in over a year: Recent News. Other links are more relevent.  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I say we leave it off then, since it does not look like it will be updated anytime soon. It is linked on ICOC Blogspot as well. Link to be revisited, if this site does get revamped. -ma
 * Since Minan and Brenneman are OBVIOUSLY biased, I suggest REVEAL gets puts back on.

History of ICOC Fraud

 * KipMcKean.com Unofficial information about Kip McKean from an ex-member
 * Ok, I'm confused by this one. This seems to consist mostly of quotes and sermons.  There appears to be one potentially negative section ( "1993 Video Report of Kip McKean dodging a CBC TV reporter who asked him about negative experiences of former ICOC members" ) but I'm on s  l   o   w  dial-up so I'll never know.  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This link is a little strange, let's keep it off. -ma
 * <Cut out to keep talk page clean.> Exposing the Financial Fraud of the International Churches of Christ
 * Also from former members, these sites specialize in examining the activities of ICOC leadership and history of fraud within the ICOC.(Comment by ma)
 * This is one of the main links on ICOC Blogspot and doesn't need to be included again. brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * However, this link is a good reference for the Controversy section, as it is an exhaustive catalog of lawsuits and other claims against the ICOC. One has to go to the bottom of the links on ICOC Blogspot to find it. I think it should be included. -ma

Academic Thesis on ICOC
<Cut out to keep talk page clean.>

From the Churches of Christ to the Boston Movement] by Russell R. Paden. May 1994 thesis from the University of Kansas. An essential and thoroughgoing analysis and comparison of the history and development of the Church of Christ and its offshoot ICOC or Boston Movement faction, including the characteristics of "historylessness" and "traditionlessness". From the Abstract: "This thesis argues that while the Boston Movement has introduced some practices that are foreign to and have origins outside the Churches of Christ, both bodies remain quite similar in doctrine and attitude. This conclusion is supported through an historical examination of the Churches of Christ and the Boston Movement detailing the forces that have shaped the attitudes and doctrines of both religious bodies."
 * Finally, this link is an academic thesis regarding the history of the mainline Church of Christ and its offshoot, the Boston Movement. This history is of interest to both current and former members in understanding the evolution of the ICOC. (Comment by ma)
 * Let's be very clear - this is a Master's thesis from a department that does not appear on the website of the university . I did read it, and it was fascinating, but it does not appear to be up to the standard required on Wikipedia (e.g. was it submitted for peer review, and if so what were the results.)  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (My mom (I know, reputable sources and all!) says "university of kansas" and "kansas university" aren't the same thing, but the "KU" website doesn't work, so I have no information there. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) )
 * I have not seen any references for this article from peer-reviewed journals, but it is referenced by a presenter at a University of VA conference on New Religious movements. There are some more journal articles on the ICOC cited here: <Cut out to keep talk page clean.> It might be nice to reference this site instead, or any other sites that compile all of the academic papers on the ICOC in one place. --ma 16:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Overall comments

 * I hope this is suitable! - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  01:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've edited the comments, let me know your thoughts. -ma 04:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * So that's one "keep" vote from me... and my browser is in meltdown. I'd glanced at all of these links prior to moving them here, but now I've just about overwhelmed my modem!  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are quite a few web sites out there on this subject! I've moved the link. -ma

Discussed External Links: Added
Since I haven't heard from other editors I'm assuming these links have been happily and sufficiently explained. I'll add them to the External Links section and if you want to discuss more let me know. — ma 00:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * That was pretty fast. I'm used to slightly more leisurely pace... please see my comments above.  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  10:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It's terribly quiet...
And we only seem to engage when the links are off the main page. As this discussion had reached no conclusion, I'm re-setting the links to the state they were in (i.e. not on the main page). brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 12:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've been out of town with little access to web or email. I'm new to this so help me get what it is that needs to happen. I don't get it :( But now I see your comments and now I'm beginning to understand better how this process works. Do appreciate more explanation on what a "leisurely pace" for you is. I personally find this to be going like molasses. But your comments are interesting and insightful. Would appreciate getting these links on a bit faster. Why don't we aim to decide on the rest of these links by end of this week? :) --ma 18:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's more United Nations, less White House, isn't it? Talk talk talk, and not much getting done!  As to the way things work, usually the outcomes are a combination of debate, popularity contest, and endurance test.  Since everyone has equal power (e.g. reverts are easy to do) in the end it's about compromise, getting everyone to agree, etc.  A good idea is to look over Resolving disputes.  Since there are (currently) only two of us talking, if we can't agree on something (which seems unlikely!) then this link explains really well how things work out.  But the key thing to notice is that everything takes time.  That being said, I'm happy to close this by the end of the week (Friday wikitime).  Have a look at the comments, tell me what you think, we'll work out something that makes us equally unhappy!  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * HA, great analogy! I've responded to all of your comments, let me know your thoughts. --ma 16:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Me experimenting with tables, just for fun
Trying to summarize our positions to date:

Well, we're making some progress!

If we change the thesis link to the AOL page you suggested, I'll support that one as well.

Thus, after some old-fashioned horse-trading, I'll propose:

You'd be letting four links go I'd be letting four in. However, it is pretty late at night and I may be delirious. Which is probably why I've used this crazy table format anyway. (Please note: thanks go to this page for how to set up tables, blame goes all to me for using them.)

brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 14:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cute. I'll review and let you know what I think in a bit. :) --ma 21:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I am still fighting for ICOC Investigation. I think it's better to have this out on the page so people can check this more quickly after reading about the criticism. I see it as a "catalog" of the investigations and controversy. --ma 18:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Bahh! I've lost my glass slipper!
Well, our agreed deadline has passed, I'm turning back into a pumpkin, and I've left the ball in your court, haven't I.  (Man there were some serious mixed metaphors there.) The fairest thing to do is probably to leave it up to you. I've made how I feel pretty clear, and we did agree to finish this. So, put the links you want on the main page, just try and be fair with me, ok? I'll leave this on my watchlist, and if someone else wants to put a link on, I'd like it discussed here first. Does that seems reasonable? Sorry to lose all my steam at the end, and I don't want you to feel like I put you through all this for nothing, I'm very happy with the results here. I'm just going to have WP:FAITH. (Pun intended.) brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  16:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. And btw, thanks for the introduction to world of Wiki... --ma 19:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like you to consider adding links to my websites
I am the webmaster for two websites about the ICOC. Kipmckean.com and ICOCinvestigation.com.

The Kip McKean website is mainly a website using quotes both old and recent and showing that Kip is still preaching the same false techings he started with 20 years ago.

Most current members of the ICOC are not paying any attention to Kip's recent teachings. I wanted to give people the opportunity to find out what Kip is currently teaching.

The 2nd website ICOCinvestigation is a "one-stop" shop for documentation and confirmation of wrong-doings of the ICOC. Some of these wrong-doings have been confessed by the leadership, some is still hidden, and I'm uncovering it.

I was a member of the ICOC for 14 years and am now out. I have a unique persepctive and would like you to consider adding both links to your pages. Please contact me if you have any other questions. Thanks!

Jenchambers
 * Well. As you can see we've had a bit of debate about whether to include your sites. If not, see above. I'm open to putting ICOC Investigation as a separate link. KipMcKean.com does not work as an ICOC article link, as your site's info is not really about the ICOC itself (especially as the groups have splintered). If there was an article about Kip McKean, I believe the link might fit better over there, perhaps paired with other links that give an alternative perspective.--ma 01:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I would ask that you re-consider adding the Kip McKean website to the ICOC information.  Kip invented the ICOC.  When he resigned, many of the churches began floundering and many are just now figuring out how to be a church with Kip's control.  Kip is actively pulling the church back under his control.  Read his most recent articles, and you see that he is putting pressure on ALL of the ICOC churches to join back with him, or be considered a dead, false church.  So I believe Kip is very much still a part of any story about the ICOC churches.  Jenchambers 21:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

External links - again
Sorry to disturb you, but I'm wondering, whether the current selection of weblinks is matching our goal of writing an encyclopedia.

Four of the current six links are linking newstickers, portals, blogs. I generally consider such links to be unencyclopedic. By their very nature, they have rapidly changing contents and so cannot be seen as background material or references for the article. Of course, they are useful (for some definition of "useful"), but providing useful links is the mission of a web directory, not an encyclopedia.

Pjacobi 22:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * See external links for the guidelines on links. Essentially the only links that are strongly discouraged are commercial sites selling something. There is no prohibition on blogs. Links used for references should be put into a separate "references" section. -Willmcw 23:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Read the entire external links, starting with Wikipedia is not a web directory. And some of the talk page. Compare with precedents in other articles. Start with
 * Also scan the list of "What should be linked to". Why do we have three blogs/newstickers from the ICOC, but not the official site?
 * Pjacobi 23:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there an official website? http://www.icoc.org/ is not active. -Willmcw 00:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It went down because of the split, I understand. But the Portland faction is at http://www.upsidedown21.org/ --Pjacobi 00:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The official site can only be accessed via the wayback machine, http://web.archive.org/web/20021201135101/icoc.org/icocmain/index_new.htm . (http://www.upsidedown21.org is only a feed from the portland site, http://www.portlandchurch.org.) Perhaps a link to the cached version of icoc.org for historical purposes only would be in order.

I've tightened up the links a bit. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how you guys can even consider not including kipmckean.com or ICOCinvestigations. There is more there about the workings of the ICOC than in this entire ARTICLE, and at least the owner of the site does SOME investigating.

Re -- ICOCNEWS.COM

I'm the editor of www.icocnews.com. I was a member of the ICOC for over 20 years. I started www.icocnews.com while I was still a member of the church -- and before I had any intentions of leaving. Information control has been one of the characteristics people have pointed to in labeling the church a "cult". While I've always been reticent to use that label -- the information control was real. I started my news site as a way to gather and dessiminate news about the ICOC outside of the control of the leaders of the church.

I was threatened with being kicked out of the church because I refused to stop allowing "just anyone" to write articles and comments on my site -- particularly those which were critical of the church. At that time I as very "pro ICOC" but I was also "pro open discussion" and permitted people to present their own point of view whether or not I agreed with it. I have kept off personal slander and character attacks....and keep the discussions to public issues.

Even though I did eventually leave, I did not leave as so many exmembers have. I am still "in fellowship" with my brothers and sisters in Christ in the ICOC. My criticisms of many of the teachings and practices were there even when I was a very enthused member. As an exmember -- I still see them as part of Christ's universal church. Just not the church I choose to have as my home fellowship.

This explains why some have had a hard time categorizing the site. It is a news/opinion/form site. It is not "pro ICOC" and it is no "anti-ICOC".

Nonny Moose (my alias as editor of www.icocnews.com)

Says who?
This is one of many assertions that are probably unverifiable. Can we limit ourselves to verifiable info please? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Many churches feel that they are moving forward in a new positive way, and are happy their errors have brought to light so that they can be changed.

Indianapolis Church
Is there a way to add some information on the Indianapolis Church of Christ split in 1994? The <Cut out to keep talk page clean.>

1. Policy and Doctrine should not be legislated from Los Angeles. 2. The ICC are not the only ones saved. 3. Giving should not be under compulsion. 4. Legalistic system is robbing Christians of joy (ie statistics, special contribution goals)

Hubzilla 08:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet another External Links revise
I have removed the following links as seem like advertisements of churches not directly related to the ICOC. Opening it up to discussion. ma 02:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * RestorationUnity.com Representing greater unity among restoration churches
 * Restoration Movement Internet Portal A web portal for members of Restoration Movement churches.

OK, seems that someone decided to put in extensive edits of the links without discussion. Seems it is by some censoring member of the ICOC movement, as they added some pro-ICOC links and deleted those more critical of the ICOC (eg Reveal)... I've changed links back to their original form and added a comic link as well. Please be aware that there was extensive discussion on those links, and if these get edited, they will be reverted to their formerly approved form pending further discussion, especially if edited by an anonymous user. ma 19:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

External Links: Discussion and consensus
I recommended that User "128.193.74.221" bring his discussion of link and history changes to this board. It'd be appreciated if the user would open an account and establish a user name. The links have already been established (see prior discussion, above) as fair and balanced, while this user's changes reflect an ICOC member-biased opinion, as the only links he or she eliminates are sites that present ex-member opinion. ma 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I must add, it is disturbing how some edits are designed to minimize or eliminate the controversy and criticism of the ICOC. This is a major part of the ICOC's history. ma 16:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a need for links to both upsidedown21.org and portlandchurch.org? They are basically mirror sites as the content is the same. I'd suggest removing portlandchurch.org as upsidedown21.org is the more general site for all of McKean's International Christian Churches.

Sin Camper

The external link [sincamper.com] is in no way factual and does not help one to better understand the ICOC. The goal of Wikipedia is to inform people about different topics. Sincamper is merely someone's bitter banter about thier own bad experiences with the ICOC. I am completely open to websites that have legitimate reasonable concerns/disagreements about the ICOC, however, sincamper does not at all fall into this category. I fully stand by keeping sincamper.com off of Wikipedia's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.74.191 (talk • contribs)


 * There are a great many people who would disagree with your POV that Sincamper is "not factual." It's evident there are multiple POV on the ICOC and the SinCamper site makes succinct witticisms on the nature of the ICOC from one of multiple perspectives. There is nothing on Wikipedia:External_links to legitimate removing this link from the list. If there were another brilliant parody site on ex-members, I would unhesitatingly support its inclusion. ma 19:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The sites critical of the ICOC are entirely appropriate, as are sites supportive. External links guidelines clearly allow single point of view external links, as long as they are indicated as such. Edgar181 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * sincamper.com is not critical it is ridiculous. The points of view portrayed on sincamper do not help one to better understand the problems associated with the ICOC, they are slanderous.  How is a cartoon of Harrison Ford half-naked going to help someone better understand the problems associated with the ICOC?  This link needs to be terminated.
 * From an outsider's POV it actually clarifies a lot of issues associated with the ICOC, in a humorous way. The Harrison Ford cartoon demonstrates the cult of personality that goes on still the ICOC and associated churches. This is a recognized alternative point of view and is not slander - further, your personal offense at the cartoons don't disqualify the link. ma 21:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please leave link until a consensus has been reached. Not satisfied that it has been.208.226.6.97 21:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. Sincamper here. I am the first to agree that some of my comics are strictly goofy takes on ICC culture that exist purely to illicit laughter at that culture's expense while many of them are very serious anecdotal vignettes of what that culture was very much like often filtered through my wild use of hyperbole and exaggeration to target truths that will be familiar with any readers who have even a small amount of experience living in that culture. On the whole, the absurdity of the culture was not recognized and lampooned in it's day, as everyone from Kip to the most foolish Assistant Bible Talk Leader took every aspect of ICC culture as dead serious and important, even lofty. Hindsight and 200,000 (a conservative figure) wounded individuals can offer a considerably different perspective on the legitimacy of the seriousness of ICC culture and I believe today, for every one person who stand by the ICC's relevance and seriousness as a vehicle for God's machinations on earth, there are 5 who believe it to be a cross between everything from Amway to Naziism, but who don't look upon their experiences in the group as sacred or edifying.


 * It has always been my hope that the comics will help bring at least my own persoanl view point of the many ironies of ICC culture to light through parody to help those who have suffered and survived ICC culture, to heal and be ABLE to laugh at areas and experiences to which they were unable to understand or view as humorous during those destructive days. The pain is very real. The wounds are very real. The damage done to many is very serious. I do not make light of the damage done to individuals by the ICC culture. I have tremendous experience living almost my entire adult life in that culture and was fully committed to it, in earlier times. I view the wake of destruction as ripples that keep spreading outward from the Ground Zero of classic ICC culture that will continue to haunt individuals for their entire lifetime. One method, that many should consider is to undertake some form of therapy to get help with coping with issues related to ICC experiences. Another, is to be able to view it objectively, freely, without defense and so to be able to finally laugh at many of the absurdities and be able to purge emotions that are usually hard to express. When someone with ICC culture experience views a comic that has underlying truth of that culture but is silly on the surface, the reaction can be one of extreme familiarity and a knowing smile can escape, with a feeling that someone else understands or has similar experiences which is a healing thing for most. Another, less familiar reader can just see the surface goofy comic and miss the underlying truth and see it as simply offensive and unhelpful in understanding ICC culture. Though I do these comics to help people who never have been members to get a glimpse of what it was like for members, the bulk of my cartoons are for members and ex-members.


 * As for the Harrison Ford comic. The POINT of that comic goes beyond the surface of a silly old pic of Harrison Ford who has nothing to do with ICC whatsoever, but to illustrate the ICC use of SPIN concerning volatile and relevent topics to keep feeding misinformation to deflect criticism and plea for loyalty from members rather than exposing and admitting to inadequacies within the culture. The "joke" in that comic, to illustrate spin, is that the ICC would hire a famous person, even pay them, to endorse the party line to preserve the culture. I try not to spell these things out because humor works on a subconcsious level and rarely works if explained. I leave it up to the reader to decide if my "point" is valid or my humor "funny".


 * Having said that, I am going to rework the Sincamper.com site so that it is full of the useful, more on-target parodies of ICC culture and less populated with the completely wild offensive, easlily misunderstood episodes that require explanation or defense. Check out the site soon and you will find it revamped with the most on-target episodes I have yet been able to accomplish. My aim is to help people to heal through laughter.
 * Best, Sincamper
 * PS: Email me with any hate mail if you must at sincamper@yahoo.com


 * Well. Clearly this is an expression of a POV, and a compellign one - not mere mockery. The link should stay. --208.0.234.58 17:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally know "Sincamper". I was a member of the ICC cult for nearly as long as he, and was even his roommate for a short time.  I can personally attest that many of his cartoons are REASONABLY ACCURATE parodies of ACTUAL events.  For example, the series of cartoons involving a ridiculous number of "brothers" living in an apartment, I can personally attest to be TRUE (slightly exaggerated for the humorous aspects).  I cannot recall whether he was in the main apartment or the secondary one of an apartment building we rented during circa 1988-1990.  In the main apartment, a ONE BEDROOM apartment, we had up to 8 men living in it.  In the smaller one-bedroom apartment in the same building, we had as many as five men.   Also consider the cartoon about "fat" people "disgusting" God.  I can personally attest that such statements were made, almost verbatim.  In fact, circa 1998, in the Louisville Church of Christ, it was declared that "fat people don't go to heaven".


 * I would say that "Sincamper's" cartoons are meant for those who have personally experienced the ICC cult's destructive nature, but isn't suitable for outsiders to learn about the group. For those of us who know the group, his cartoons ring true.  For those who don't, I don't think they would make much sense.

Regards, KeithStump 08:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a current member of ICOC and have found many things on the SinCamper site to be humorous. I cant report on the factuality of any events he describes or mocks with his site, but I have been a member for over 10 years now of the ICOC and can say that MANY horrible mistakes were made in the past. Many horrible mistakes will be made in the future as well. I personally choose to view his site as a source of humor, because I experienced those things he mentions and can smile at them now. I moved on. Some people are unable to do so though, and while I dont condemn them for that choice, I do feel sympathy towards their situation. Good luck to you all.GrimGambit 20:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We need more.
Good to finally see a discussion on the links. Please make a list of your arguments for each link you eliminated. For a guide on doing this, see the prior discussions earlier on this page regarding the external links. Also please sign your posts by typing four tildes. Note that Wiki operates on a consensus basis. Do not delete these links until a consensus on them has been reached - otherwise, they will continue to be reverted to the original list. Thanks. ma 19:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Response:
 * I think that the most reasonable thing for Wikipedia to do, given its need for neutrality, is to split the article into two halves. Let one half been controlled by pro-ICOC writers, and the other to be controlled by contra-ICOC writers.  Let the reader be made aware of controversies and how the article is split.  This would give both sides the ability to state their cases.  There will never be a consensus discription of any substance between the two groups.  ICOC members are programmed to defend the ICOC and to deny its problems.  We ex-members are primarily focused on exposing the problems.  There is no possible meeting ground; so it is best to let each have their say, in their own space, and be done with it.

Restore advocacy section
For now, I've restored the deleted advocacy section. It's true that the statements are not backed up with citations, but neither is much of the criticism of the ICOC. Until disputes are resolved by consensus here, I think the article should not be altered significantly from the state it was in when the back-and-forth reverting started. My personal opinion is that this section needs to be rewritten and backed up if it's going to stay though. Edgar181 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

New Source
Awesome Families: The Promise of Healing Relationships in the International Churches of Christ This is an interesting new source on the ICOC that someone should reference in the article.

Kathleen Jenkins, an associate professor of Sociology at William & Mary wrote and conducted research for this book while her family members were part of the ICOC.
 * Awesome Families: The Promise of Healing Relationships in the International Churches of Christ

(From Rutgers Press web site) Description: Denounced by some as a dangerous cult and lauded by others as a miraculous faith community, the International Churches of Christ was a conservative evangelical Christian movement that grew rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s. Among its followers, promises to heal family relationships were central to the group's appeal. Members credit the church for helping them develop so-called "awesome families"-successful marriages and satisfying relationships with children, family of origin, and new church "brothers and sisters." The church engaged an elaborate array of services, including round-the-clock counseling, childcare, and Christian dating networks-all of which were said to lead to fulfilling relationships and exciting sex lives. Before the unified movement's demise in 2003-2004, the lure of blissful family-life led more than 100,000 individuals worldwide to be baptized into the church. In Awesome Families, Kathleen Jenkins draws on four years of ethnographic research to explain how and why so many individuals-primarily from middle- to upper-middle-class backgrounds-were attracted to this religious group that was founded on principles of enforced community, explicit authoritative relationships, and therapeutic ideals. Weaving classical and contemporary social theory, she argues that members were commonly attracted to the structure and practice of family relationships advocated by the church, especially in the context of contemporary society where gender roles and family responsibilities are often ambiguous. Tracing the rise and fall of this fast-growing religious movement, this timely study adds to our understanding of modern society and offers insight to the difficulties that revivalist movements have in sustaining growth.

"Official website" link
I removed the external link for the so-called "official website" because it was actually a link to this Wiki article. Obviously this is not ICOC's offical website. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * fixed the link with the archive version at bibalex. not sure how it got changed to wikipedia. http://archive.bibalex.org/web/20010202033500/http://icoc.org/ 24.193.57.216 13:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted changes by User:198.45.19.20
I've reverted a set of changes by this anonymous user. They may have some merit, but they are written in highly pejorative and POV language. I would encourage this user to look at the Wikipedia article NPOV and try to reword their additions to suit. Gwernol 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy Section
It's clear that for the sake of balance, the advocacy section adds some value to this article. However, the following item is clearly an opinion that is worded as fact and should be either revised, attributed as a quote or removed entirely:

"3. When most of the North American churches have lost a sense of global mission, the ICOC rallied all of their churches in foreign mission work."

What about the Mormons? They have a pretty significant global mission. Same with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Using terms like 'most of' is generally accepted by the Wikipedia community as the use of 'weasel words.' For more information, see Avoid_weasel_words

Because of these observations, I've tagged this article as NPOV in the hopes that some valiant editor with contextually pertinent knowledge will refine this section/statement.

JustinStroud 17:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out: "the following item is clearly an opinion that is worded as fact..." I too would like to see some valiant editor refine that section. And, I really like that big red banner at the top of the article. LOL! ma 18:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Are the reconstruction phase and remnant concept worth inclusion?
Back in February, I added a section on the reconstruction phase of the mid to late 80's. This was promptly removed by someone who didn't seem to like it, but there was no disputing the factuality. I thought I was being neutral in the treatment, and thought it was important to see that this method is organization is being somewhat repeated by Kip McKean recently. For an outside, reference, you can see the article below. I don't know Gene Vinzant, but if you search on reconstruction or remanat, you will find what happened in Atlanta and and Berkeley. The "remnant" concept is being used again now almost exactly like it was used 20 years ago. I find this to be a guiding concept in McKean's approach. The "reconstruction" idea is not mine, it was the movement's. Why should mention of it be edited out? Likewise, the remnant is an idea in the Bible, but it is rarely co-opted by modern religious movements. If McKean has repeatedly chosen to co-opt it, then why should that not be mentioned?

The strange thing about the previous editing is that they person who did it didn't cut my comments about the Shepherding Movement of the 60's.

<Cut out to keep talk page clean.> Gene Vinzant

Your comments are welcome. If people are in general agreement that these concepts should be reinserted, I'll put them back in an let someone else who is better than NPOV edit them.

Rob Pinion

Why is neutrality being questioned?
I haven't really seen one single decent thread here about the neutrality of this wiki entry.

Here's my thought. I think that ICOC'ers have deliberately given this site that label to mollify the obvious charge that the ICOC is a cult.

But let's remember. The ICOC IS considered a cult by almost all groups that classify cults.

While the ICOC would like to say they aren't a cult, there are about a half million former members who feel differently.

__________________________________________________________________________

Neutrality is being questioned because too many things are being posted that are based on opinions of the poster. POV's are not a credible source that should be allowed to influence information on the entry of the ICOC. Former members..for the most part...are not capable of giving an unbiased contribution to the article. I've read several things posted by them in here that are flat out lies which I can only assume were posted out of bitterness they are still holding onto regarding their experience w/ICOC. This, I admit, is an assumption on my part as I obviously dont know them enough to do anything other than guess at their motives. They must be reminded that this is THEIR experience..and not allow it to influence the reader to the point that it affects the outlook a Wikipedia reader may take towards the ICOC. Current members of the ICOC should also stick to reporting just FACTUAL information. Editing in information towards people like Kip McKean that may come across as negative or hurtful towards him or other former members is wrong. Dont allow critics of the church provoke you with their comments to the point that you respond with equally incorrect/wrong info. Two wrongs do not make a right. You believe what you believe about the ICOC and go about your business.

Everyone get on with their lives for crying out loud. There are more productive ways to spend your time.GrimGambit 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)GrimGambit 19:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias Against ICOC
I deleted some of the external link because it has too much slander and lies. I also edited much of the content, because it is obviously anti-ICOC. Missionprophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.11.133.22 (talk • contribs)

So is ANTI-ICOC content not allowed? Please cite the lies and LIBEL, also be aware the written word cannot be slanderous - instead it would be libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.188.178 (talk • contribs)

I deleted all of those unrelated external links. Please don't change it back. Missionprophet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.11.133.22 (talk • contribs)

Who are you to tell people how to change things. I am reviwing it and if I decided to change it I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.188.178 (talk • contribs)


 * This article clearly does not conform to Wikipedia's standards of neutral point of view - WP:NPOV. Mainly it is written from a critic's point of view.  That doesn't mean that you can go through and delete everything negative about the ICOC and removing all links to critical sites.  Everyone needs to work together to craft a neutral article. Deli nk 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good point - Missingprophet thinks he runs the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.188.178 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia has specific rules about how articles are to be written, which newcomers aren't always aware of. I hope everyone coming here lately takes a few moments to learn about them before making any significant changes.   And just a heads up for everyone, it is considered good etiquette to always sign your posts on talk pages by added for tildes.  Deli nk 22:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson on etiquette. I choose not to sign, right to privacy rules over etiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.16.177 (talk • contribs)


 * "So is ANTI-ICOC content not allowed?" Actually no it's not. NPOV (Neutral Point Of View).  See Neutral_point_of_view for more information on that.  Our goal here is to collect facts, and present them in a neutral way.  For example, it is a fact that many ministers have been accused of spending crazy amounts of money that was not their's to spend.  This is in fact neutral, about the ICOC, and not ANTI-ICOC.  It is a fact and it is a fact stated in a neutral way without bias.  However, it is not a fact that every minister in the ICOC spends their churches money in ungodly ways, or the ICOC is a cult, or the ICOC is Satan's church, etc.  These are points of views.  These links should stay, because they are facts about the ICOC.  Not that everything on them is fact (its not my place to say either way), but the sites themselves are regarding the ICOC, and should all be included.  I also believe now that what I submitted earlier (which was promptly removed) was not neutral.  I appologise, and hopefully I will find a neutral way to get across what I want to say. So when editing, please keep this in mind. Rob 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Advocacy point 2 3
When the mentality of consumerism dominated the culture of Evangelicalism, the ICOC mobilized their members in community service for the poor.

This point is NOT true at all. ICOC is least known for their charity work. In fact compared to most other mainstream churches such as Catholic, Mormons, envengelical Christians, Churches of Christ and etc, ICOC did a very poor job in charity. And it is also very arrogant and self-righteous to call other "consumerism dominated", when ICOC itself did no better in this area. Whoever thinks ICOC did good job in "community service" need to show their proof. Junlee

"When most of the North American churches have lost a sense of global mission, the ICOC rallied all of their churches in foreign mission work."

This is a very subjective argument. No one outside ICOC will think ICOC has more commitment in global mission than others. Please provide more supports for your argument.

Also, ICOC does not have 100000 members. According to ICOCinfo.org, it has around 95000 members and it is possibly much lower than that.

ICOCinfo is a biased source and cannot be trusted. The owner has publicly stated his bias for the church and is a current member.

Under the controversy section
"The Christians in the church, known as Disciples, have often surprised those they meet, due to their strong beliefs. There are both positive and negative responses: to some, most of the members do exhibit rigorous faith in that they are seriously living out their faith; to others, they are just "too committed," almost fanatical"

To me, it seems to imply people don't like ICOC members just because they are serious about their faith. I find this claim to be too self-righteous because people criticize ICOC due to many reasons. So I changed it

There is some very POV text under advocacy. You guys may want to edit-protect this page. 128.239.178.106 04:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Anon

Anon ... everything in there is a fact, what needs to be removed is that laughable propoganda - LOL the ICOC cares about the poor. The ICOC cares nothing about people that can't feed its bank account and you know it.

The ICOC is an evil cult that robs poor people. If you have ever attended one of their services, this truth is self-evident. Find me 10 people who have been with this church for more than 5 years. Or 10 years, or longer. There are so few you'd have difficulty doing this. Is this God's church? One that people can't last more than a few years in without getting burned out? The ICOC takes people's money and it is a cult by just about anyones standards. But if you don't believe me, I could give a rats .... Join, donate all your money to the Kip's Children's Harvard Fund, then leave dissillusioned after you've alienated EVERYONE you know, including your family. We'll talk when you're trying to piece your life back together.


 * What you say may, in fact, be true--I have encountered an ICOC group on my local campus, and don't have a reason to disagree with you. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it needs to present all sides of the ICOC.  Wikipedia needs to do it in a way that does not favor one view or another.  I have known the ICOC group to be harmful.  I have known Hitler to be harmful.  (Forgive me, Godwin.)  Hitler's article is not biased (e.g. OMG! Hitler is evil!).  It simply states the facts without bias, as this article needs to.  128.239.178.106Anon

Funny how you dont complain about the bias TOWARDS the ICOC. Grow up already.

How about an update?
Instead of just an edit war over links, can somebody put out some good info on whether the goals to have been reached by November 2005 and February 2006 have been met, and if so wholly or in part? Rlquall 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Whenever it is changed to include FAIR criticism the hacks change it back this article will be forever mired in bias.

That's okay. There are WAY more exmembers than members who edit here, and we'll keep reverting the ICC's attempts at information control. I deleted "Many ICOC members believe that a certain degree of controversy is a positive sign that they are on the right track and point to the fact that Jesus has always been, by his words and action, a controversial figure."

This is really a stupid and immature statement. Very few current members I know believe in this. And many ICOC leaders and members fully realize privaetely they are being criticised for their unbibical practice, instead of being controversial like Jesus. Junlee

I also deleted "Some current members fully acknowledge the damaging practices of the past, accept most outside criticism as valid, and are trying to reform church practices to more completely conform to the Bible At the same time, many members and non-members also recognize that not all ICOC churches are the same. ." under Criticism section That section is supposed tot talk about criticism of ICOC. If you want to talk about how ICOC has reform, then go open another section to do so.

I deleted "While it has been shown that some churches have used the process of 'love bombing', whereby members show false love to visitors and non-members in hopes of converting them, many churches within the ICOC are generally full of loving people, willing to have fun, be kind, serve one-another, and enjoy the company of both members and non-members alike without having to fake this love"

Lol, this is the most laugable statement I have ever seen here. ICOC are "full of loving people". Give me a break. Hey, Robert, did you mistaken wikipedia as a ICOC propaganda machine?


 * Hi there. Note a couple things: first, I used the term "many churches" instead of "most churches" or "all churches".  I PERSONALLY know of MANY churches that are full of real, loving people.  I NEVER said the ICOC is "full of loving people".  Just because you've seen or been involved with a bad or multiple bad churches, you havn't been involved with all of them.  Maybe many churches in the icoc are full of liars, fakers, and jerks.  But, I KNOW that the many I have personally been involved in are full of caring, loving, and serving people.


 * Quoting the same quote from Kip, or anyone else in leadership for that matter and then saying how it makes EVERYONE IN THE ICOC AN EVIL PERSON is propaganda, and MANY IF NOT ALL Anti-ICOC web sites are doing exactly that. They all claim "So and so said this, and he is a leader in the icoc, thus all the people in the icoc believe this, and are evil", which is pure and utter garbage.  My church has had some things wrong with it that have changed for the better in the last couple years, but we disagree with many things that leaders have said in the past, and even with some of the things being said by leaders currently!  But disagreeing over opinion issues shouldn't distroy unity, and this is what many of the things being said ARE.


 * I am on here actually trying to make this encyclopedic. If you want to change my wording, go ahead, but it is absolutely true that there are many ICOC churchs that are full of warm, caring people.  My church is one of them.  I've also been a churchs across canada, and seen the same thing.  You can dispute my wording if you want, but you can't dispute the FACT that many icoc churches are full of loving and caring people. This is the same reason I changed the marriage comment to say refer to some marriages and to what some people have said, cause it certainly doesn't reflect anything about my marriage.  Rob 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So WHAT are the many churches you have been involved in? Your resume, readily available via Wik, pretty much says you have lived in ONE place all of your life. Please back up your statement. The ICOC is a cult rather YOU like it or not, and many researchers attest to this.


 * Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver, Orlando. I have spent time in each of these churches, and have been welcomed with love and incredible friendship.  And wow by the way--way to be totally unbiased.  I can also claim many researchers attest to the ICOC NOT being a cult.  I give as much back-up as you do (nothing), but I at least sign my name to what I write. Rob 03:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, Rob, again, these are all just your personal experience of ICOC, you cannot put those in this article. If you like, you can open a new topic call "Rob's experience in ICOC" on wikipedia. Junlee


 * Junlee, you'r absolutely right. I agreed it was not neutral in a previous posting on here.  Rob 13:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "The ICOC is a cult rather YOU like it or not" You should also check out Civility with regards to actually being civil, and Talk_pages which says you have to log in and sign your comments to even use a talk page. As well, you might find No personal attacks interesting, and Etiquette.  Thanks! Rob 17:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh so rather than prove it is a church you say I need to sign in... interesting.


 * I don't need to prove it to you, nor is this the place. As I added to the above conversation, this site is all about neutrality.  Whether you believe it's a cult, or I believe it's God's kingdom is irrelivant here.  Our goal is to put together a neutral, fact based article on it.  This is not the place for such debates.  It is not, and will never be an undisputable FACT, either way.  The article can contain 'many people believe the ICOC to be a cult' and 'many people believe the ICOC is God's church', but cann't contain 'the ICOC IS a cult' or 'the ICOC IS God's church.'  Make sense?

No, the FACT is the ICOC is a cult. It does not matter if you say the sky is green if it's blue, it's blue. Look up the definition of a cult and see how many of those standards apply to the ICOC. So since you want a fact based article, how much research have you done into the possibility that the ICOC is a cult?


 * How can you say that? Don't you see how hipocritical that is?  You say the ICOC is a cult, implies that you believe every church in the icoc is a cult, and thus you say the Winnipeg church of christ is a cult.  Have you ever been here?  Do you know what we teach?  Do you know what our lives are like?  Do you know the hearts of those people here?  Do you know my heart?  Do you know ANYTHING ABOUT US AT ALL???  How much research have YOU done into the possibility that the WCOC is a cult?  NONE.  And yet you say it is a FACT that it IS A CULT???  Go ahead and say that the X Church of Christ is a cult, where X is a church I have no clue about, and X is some place you have personal knowledge about.  Then maybe you'll have a case.  But saying the ENTIRE ICOC is a cult is ignorant and hipocritical. Rob 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh once again you don't answer my question, but I shall answer yours. How much research have I done? I LIVED IT!!! I was in the ICOC - are you saying that the WCOC (Wow almost spells WACO) has NEVER said only date within the ICOC? Are you saying they have NEVER preached the OTC? Are you saying they never preached if you leave the ICOC you go to hell?

IT is a CULT - deal with it. So I guess no one can say slavery was bad unless they visited all the plantations.


 * "So I guess no one can say slavery was bad unless they visited all the plantations." Totally bad analogy.  Better one: don't call someone a slave owner, or an endorser of slavery, just because they owned a farm in texas in the 1850s.


 * The wikidefinition of cult is "a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream." Fine.  By that definition, we are a cult.  Go ahead and call us a cult.  But notice that definition has nothing evil or wrong about it.  Perfectly moral and Godly people can form a cult according to that definition.  How about a group of people that get together, and each sell their homes to live in Appartments, and give all the profit to homeless?  They sure would be a small cohesive group of people, devoted to beliefs of helping the poor, and practices of giving money, and the entire culture around them would call them crazy.  But have they done anything wrong?  No.  But because they are different, this definition labels them a cult.  According to that definition, the Department of Mathematics at the UofM is a cult.  We are a (somewhat) cohesive group of people, relatively small, devoted to beliefs of proving, and practices of spending all day discussing math in depth, far outside the mainstream of Winnipeg.


 * When I and most people hear the word Cult, we hear this definition: "a small, evil religious group, often with a single charismatic leader, which engages in brainwashing and other mind control techniques, believes that the end of the world is imminent, and collects large amounts of weaponry in preparation for a massive war."  This is the definition I have a problem with.


 * I assumed you were in the ICOC, and no we don't preach that you must date within the ICOC. We preach that it's not a smart idea to date a non-christian, because sleeping together before marriage is a sin, and dating a non-christian can lead to wanting to do that more.  I'm afraid I don't know what OTC refers to.  Leaving the ICOC is not wrong.  Paul and Barnabas parted ways, and it wasn't sin.  But when someone leaves the ICOC, commonly they leave God.  Nearly (about 75%) of all my friends who have left the ICOC, left God entirely and didn't try to hide that fact! LOL!  There are disciples inside the ICOC, and there are disciples outside the ICOC.  There are non-christians inside the ICOC, and there are non-christians outside the ICOC.


 * And I never said that we never preached this stuff. We did preach that the ICOC is the only way to salvation, and that it was sin to date outside the ICOC.  We were wrong.  But even then, the WCOC was never a 'cult' in the second definition of the word.  It always was, and is, and probably always will be a cult in the first version, just because of what Jesus said: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matt 7:13.  Many people choose the easy way of not being a Christian.  The narrow gate is NOT the ICOC.  It is Christianity.


 * Man...I hope this is enough. I was going to even bring up the topic of eracing some of this talk page so it isn't so long anymore, and here I am making it pages longer! Rob 01:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny your slave anaolgy would be deflecting people who call slavery bad. The point was could I call slavery bad without visiting all plantations. Slavery existed, and harms, as does the ICOC - yet you want to make it about anyone who owned a farm.


 * Yes, YOUR point is you could call slavery bad without visiting all plantations. That's true.  MY point is that you can't call someone a slave owner without knowing that they own slaves, or call someone an anti-abolitionist just because they own a large farm in Texas in the 1850's.  You are calling the WCOC (farm) a cult (anti-abolishionist, or slave holders) because we exist among other churches (farms) which you claim you know are cults (slave holders).

Also you use a Wikipedia definition to define cult. Anyone can in fact post here, and yes I will be changing that, so lets look at what www.dictionary.com calls a cult.

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. The followers of such a religion or sect.

Case closed the ICOC is a cult, and even that definition excuses the words damaging and harmful both which the ICOC are.


 * The WCOC doesn't meet these requirements for a cult as far as I'm concerned. What we do is generally considered to be extremist or false.  Sure, I'll give it that.  But so was Jesus.  We live in an unconventional manner.  This is the same thing, just restated.  We live in a different way from the norm.  Our "leader" (minister) is anything but authoritarian.  He used to be, but has changed quite a bit.  Charistmatic?  He's a nice guy, at least, lol!

Jesus was considered that way YES, but the leaders of the ICOC dont compare to Jesus. Jesus didnt lie about where the moneyw as going and assign disciplers now did he.

Another site lists 10 characteristics of a cult:

1. Deceptive recruiting practices.


 * No one in the WCOC does this, and if I ever found out they did, I would rebuke them, as would anyone else.


 * They do, you're lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are going to assume I'm lying, then we can stop the conversation right here. It's pointless. Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Dynamic and authoritarian leadership.


 * Dynamic? Sure, he's got entertaining sermons, and he is a smart guy, but not Authoritarian, thats for sure.  He always says that it doesn't affect him either way if we repent or not...and he most of the time will never know!  But God does.


 * Who is HE what is HIS name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Look it up. It aint Kip McKean, or any other leader you have a problem with.  It's someone you've never heard of, and you call him a cult leader. Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow you make great claims and when someone asks who the leader is you won't respond. How do you know I have never heard of him. LOL what are you scared of? Let's see first you won't research cults and now you punk out on this - sad.

3. Elitism.


 * Like a "we're the best" attitude? Anything but!  We are the worst!  We are just a bunch of people trying our best to live for Christ.  And even when we thought we were doing good, we were doing awful!  We are anything but the best.  But we are committed.


 * You say you are the worse, but the ICOC constantly has claimed it is the ONLY way to heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, the ICOC has constantly claimed it is the only way to heaven. And we did too.  My point is we don't anymore.  We repented of that sin.  Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No you haven't.

4. Cultic vocabulary.


 * Like...


 * Bro, awesome, everyone using the same phrases all the time - in a flat out powerful way. You induce people by getting them use the same phrases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So...we talk a certain way, and that makes us a cult? This is obviously not a major part of your argument we are a cult.  If it is, your argument has problems. Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No that combined with the other things make you a cult.

5. Alienation from family and friends.


 * I alienate myself from my mom without any help, thank you very much. This is sin, and the CHURCH encourages me to be more humble, kind, and compassionate to her!  They are the ones helping me to get back in a better relationship with her!  Without the WCOC, I would probably never talk to my mom.


 * That's you, what does the church preach if someone leaves or conatsntly criticizes the church they alienate that person. Marking is a prime example. I was in leadership in one of the biggest parts of the so-called movement we were told to do these top five things constantly at meetings with all church leaders around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with alienation from faimly and friends.  Do you know many people have been marked from the WCOC in it's entire history?  Do you?  Come on.  You know all, and know what is in everyone's heart...so tell me.  More than this, and more on topic, how many family members of disciples have been marked in the WCOC?  Again, you MUST know this in order to make such a comment, so go ahead...tell me if you can.  How about an easier question...has ANYONE ever been marked by the WCOC?  Can you answer that even for certain?  How about the more on topic question has any family member of a WCOC member been marked?  Huh?  Come on...answer with full assurance, because surely you know.  You are ALL knowing since you were hurt by some people in a church.  I knew that was the way to become all knowing.  Even better, do you know how many people in the WCOC have worse relationships with their parents since they became disciples?  I would really be interested in that stat, and, since you obviously know everything, tell me.  I know all the people in the church here, and have met a number of their parents, but you know ALL of them.  So, please, enlighen me with your infinite knowledge of churches hundreds (or thousands?) of miles away from you.  Please.  I insist you share this knowledge with me.  Your brilliantness should not be hidden away, it should be shared with the world!  All should know the brilliance of the annonymous wikipedia poster!!!  ATTENTION EVERYONE!  SEE THE MOST BRILLIANT PERSON IN THE WORLD!  THE FAMOUS, GREAT, DISTINGUISHED, PRESTIGIOUS, FAMED, AND AMAZING ANONYMOUS POSTER!!!  COME ONE, COME ALL!!!  Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow the hit doe howls this really hit a nerve, mut be a pet peeve huh Robbie?

6. Legalism.


 * We have been bad at this in the past, but we are getting better. And this can be said of many many religious movements.  I went to a Lutheran church once where there was a script for every church service, every day of the year that the priest and all the congregation had to go through together.  Every year, the same thing.  But we have been just as bad at times, forcing people to have their quiet times for at least 1 hour, every morning, blah blah blah.  All garbage, and we have changed in the last couple years.


 * So just because it can be said of other churches it's okay? Now you are making excuses. You guys are still highly legalistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, other churches being legalistic is not ok. I never said anything of the sort.  In fact, I said "we have been just as bad at times".  Do you even read my posts before replying?  You're right, we are still highly legalistic.  But we are better than we were, and we are working on it.  We are aware of the problem, and we are working on it.  If anything, this shows how much we are NOT a cult. Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You are worse, there has been no repentance.

7. Induced fatigue.


 * Excuse me? Living for God makes me tired, thus I'm in a cult?  Tell you what, man, SCHOOL makes me more tired than church does.


 * INDUCED is the key phrase, everything is a meeting of the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not true, and how would you know if it was? In the past, yes, many if not all things were labelled meetings of the body, and we were required to come.  However, now we go to what we want.  Sundays are meetings of the body, and that's it.  Wednesdays are optional, bible talk get togethers are optional, classes are optional, conferences are optional, bake sales, garage sales, dances, are all optional.  And I mean REALLY optional, in that if you don't show up, no one will look down on you, or disciple you later.  I know.  I've done it.  Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

8. Sanction oriented.


 * I can do whatever I want, and I don't have to ask permission. If I need to, I ask advice.  But I don't always take it.


 * Sure ya can pal, you were given the green light to date and marry and if they thought it wasn't working out the relationship would have ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats not true at all. There was a couple in our church who started dating about 2 years ago, despite people advising them not to.  They were still allowed to, and they dated successfully for about 6 months, but then broke up, and fell away together a couple weeks later.  They live together now.  They chose not to take the advice given them, and they paid for it.  However, I also know another couple in Calgary who recently got married.  They were advised to break up when they were dating, but now they are married, and some of the most amazing married disciples in Calgary!  Advice is not always right, and should be treated as such.  Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

They "FELL AWAY" - BINGO and FOLKS there it is. They fell away, not they left the ICOC - not they chose to worship elsewhere, they fell away and why did they FALL AWAY because they did not take the advice, wow we have all heard this one before.

9. Anti-intellectual.


 * We are anything but. Our minister has a degree in Philosophy, and is constantly taking more courses to up himself intellectually.  Our song leader is working on his Ph. D. in computer engineering, after a masters in Math and an undergraduate degree in Physics.  We have techy guys who work in the computer field, after getting major training.  I myself am a Masters student in math.


 * YOU guys are anti-intellectual, most of your leaders NO NOTHING of the bible. That's what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Our minister takes classes regularly, reading lots of books, and trains us quite well. I think he is a very intellectual man.  You can't even name one of my leaders, so your response it based on total ignorance. Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL apparently you can't name any of them either.

10. Thought stopping.


 * Sermons make me think as much as classes do.


 * Thought stopping means there are words and phrases designed to end discussion and rebuttal. If you tell me something and I reply with, "You're prideful" that's a thought stopper - of course no one does that. LOL yeah right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I will never end the conversation if someone tells me I'm being prideful. I try really hard to understand what they are saying.  I have trouble with pride, and I want to understand.  Someone saying "You're being prideful" makes the conversation longer, not shorter. Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No it makes it shorter, and you know it does.

11. No professional clergy.


 * Our minister is paid staff, paid by us. His job is to be a minister, and I would call him quite the professional at it.


 * That is not prefessional clergy. What seminary did he go to? Where did he study - sorry you can't get a theological degree in the Gemple's living room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He wasn't in the Gemple's living room, and Jesus didn't have any degree. Again, if this is one of your main points as to why we are a cult, then your argument needs a lot of work. Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL Jesus also never tithed try that one at church, Jesus also never sinned. Your leaders are not Christ. 12. Doctrine in flux/ false prophesies.


 * Our doctrine has changed over the last while...for the better...but doesn't that just make us people striving to do what's right?


 * Your doctrine changed to retain members pure and simple. It wasn't a matter of repentance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It changed because people realized how much our doctrine was resulting in sin, and everyone had a desire to repent. It wasn't the leadership that made the decision to change--it was everybody.  Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OH wow EACH and EVERY person, had Kriete not written his letter your church would still be doing all that it did before. There was a not a change due to a love for God or brokeness ANYWHERE in the ICOC.

13. Financial exploitation.


 * Nothing of the kind.


 * LOL wrong again, you have no idea where your money goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't even know my roll in the church. For all you know I am the financial administrator.  This conversation is like talking with a 16 year old.  How old are you? Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow great response, I don't know your role. You still have no idea where the money goes.

14. Mind control.


 * Anything but.


 * Everything and, matter of fact when you make statements like a lot of other statements do it to and you defend it and pretend you don't see it. You are not thinking for yourself. Do I think you are sincere about God, yep I do. But I know how the ICOC works and I know how it continues to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All in the ICOC ... including love bombing. The ICOC is a cult. No twi-ways about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So come to Winnipeg then. See the church here.  Think and judge for yourself.  You wont.  Because you're not thinking for yourself.  You listen to what other people say about the ICOC, and take what you know about the one church you've been hurt by, and you extend it to everyone in the ICOC.  You thought for yourself at one point when you left an abusive church, and you are refusing to think again.  It's really sad to see.  If you continue this line of thinking, you will probably hate christians in general one day.  Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL you're the one who can't think for himself - you may what was the term you used "Fall away" this is like talking to a drone, but hey in 10 years you will be out of the ICOC and admitting the truth. Everyone I know on the net and off said I will never leave, they are gone now.

Again, if there are churches you personally know have done these things, then they were perhaps cults at that time.


 * So now you were a CULT and suddenly changed. Let me guess YOUR church was never one of them -- funny how every one in every ICOC church claims non of THAT heppened where they were yet Ex-members all over the world claim otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, seriously dude...it's really starting to bother me that you are not reading what I'm saying before you post, and if you don't begin, I will just stop posting. I have said ALL OVER THE PLACE that we used to do this and that.  We were in sin up to our eye-balls, to use an ICOC phrase, and we are changing.  We are not perfect, nor will we ever be.  But the fact that we see the problems, and are changing shows we are not a cult. Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am reading it, it bothers me you don't think or answer most of my points but rather say - I won't tell you who my leader is, I wont look up cults.

We would have qualified for many of these (not all) even 3 years ago. But it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to say that every church in the ICOC satisfies all these requirements and should be considered a cult, and I take offence to you saying that the WCOC, dispite all it's efforts to repent, is, and will always be a cult, just because it includes itself among the ICOC. That is utter garbage. Rob 17:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not saything they DID that. I am saying they DO it. Yeah I can dig it you can be in al-Qada and just exchange recipes I guess. i mean after all we have not met everyone in a-Qada we don't know how they all feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.42.110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, this is why we are supposed to sign our names to our postings: this conversation is almost un-readable now. Anyone else that looks at the above mess will have trouble knowing when I stop talking and you begin! I fixed it a little bit... please post below this point from now on. And at least sign your work annonymously, like I did for you.Rob 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the DTime Robbie


 * Sorry for this everybody. This guy is obviously a troll just trying to get under my skin.  If there is anyone else out there that really does care to argue the point, and thinks that I am in a cult, let me know, or if anyone thinks that I gave up on this conversation too soon, let me know.  I'm done talking to him.  I'm tempted to delete the whole conversation.  Rob 17:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my god, Rob, you just really crack me up. But, sorry, you are actually making this article more unencyclopedic. First of all,it is your Opinion that ICOC are full of Loving ppl, not a fact. But, hey, this is your freedom, you can believe whatever you want. Just to open your narrow mind. Many people don't believe the same thinh as you do. But that is not the point. My point is wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, you can not put your own opinion on ICOC here. If I believe ICOC is full of evil people, can I write it on wikipedia? Of course not. Do you understand now? Jun Lee.


 * Notice my comment under "Bias Against ICOC" above. I agree it was not neutral, and I appologise.  Rob 18:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

ICOC and finance
This article as a whole downplayed a lot of major ICOC critics. I almost saw nothing about the One True Church doctrine. And it says very little about those financial scandels and leaders' lavish lifestyles. This indicates some editors have an agenda.

I am going to add a section called "ICOC and finance" under the controversy section. Junlee.

The whisper links are neutral?
Junlee! Why are the criticism links about former ICOC are most inportant than the Links of Reformed & Progressive ICOC websites? The critical lincs are not topical. There are many negative whisper/backbite = aspersion. "Proverbs 11.13 A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter." --TransylvanianKarl 09:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, transvaniankarl, this is a very fair question,. Yes, I do think ICOC criticism links are more important ICOC official links because they provide more info on ICOC current issues and history. And, BTW, those ICOC official links should not be called "reformed & progrssive ICOC websites". The content of those ICOC websites provide very vague info on ICOC beliefs and history. And, of course, they completely ignore all the controversial issues of ICOC. Assuming a person does not know anything about ICOC, he certainly will not know more about ICOC after reading those ICOC links.

I will not be quick to label ICOC crticism links as "whisper links". Although it may contain some gossips as many ICOC leaders charge, it actually help both members and ex-members understand the real side of ICOC. One can understand why ICOC is so controversial after they read these websites. Junlee

The criticizm links are not manipulative?

Jun Lee! I think the criticism vebsite's viewpoint just a viewpoint (manipulatíve and special pleading.) Not the truth. If you read a lot that is the real mind controll! --TransylvanianKarl 08:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Trans, true, most contents in criticism websites are just viewpoints. But viewpoints in ICOC website's are just viewpoints too. But here are the major different between ICOC official websites and ICOC criticism links. ICOC criticism links provide fractual truth from different group of people; ICOC websites only show people the rosy side of ICOC. Beside that, one will never know the controversial side of ICOC by reading ICOC official sites.

It is just amazed me how you accused those who read ICOC criticism links are being manipulated. Oh, boy, I used to be like you. I used to regard those websites as spiritual pornography. But if ICOC members really believe ICOC is righteous, why will they be afraid of these websites? Let's face it. The internet played a great role of exposing ICOC. Junlee

The 1st century Church also was'nt pefect!!
Helló, Jun Lee. I dont idealize the Church and the people in the Church. I understand the real side of ICOC. I know about many details. But I think perfect church is it cannot be the world. The perfect Church be only in the heaven. I translated many things from those links but i find those just like the yellow press. They emphasize some negative thing from past. I dont care what happend 20-years ago. --TransylvanianKarl 12:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have heard so many people defending ICOC by saying ICOC is not perfect. This is really a poor argument.Nobody criticize ICOC for not bring perfect. People criticize ICOC for systematically flawed. You may not care what happened in ICOC before. But in wikipedia, it is very important to show readers the history of ICOC. Junlee

What do you mean the past? Many of the same people who committed those atrocities are still paid by the church today. Why is that?

Hi Jun Lee!

Im thankful for the past. That was very instructive for me.
That was extra special experience. I changed in my character. Yes was some mistake and many good things too. But the church is not perfect. I think the ICOC leaders, end the problems of system of disciplining roots was in the '''Burnout (psychology).  The burnout syndrome is not alone exist only in the ICOC'''. It is very frequent in the helpers professions. I know what is the Burnout, because I work in a helper job. (The helpers jobs: nurse, doctor, psychiater, teacher, pastor, family doctor, librarian, social work, top staff) You sad: “Many of the same people who committed those atrocities are still paid by the church today.” -Yes that is biblical forgiveness. They has repented and changed. I can write more but it is very dificult for my because my english is very poor. I hope understandable what I writed. If it's unintelligible, please feedback on my User page. Thank you. --TransylvanianKarl 16:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Really they have repented? So why haven't former members, like myself received an apology from sector leaders? Why haven't they admitted they lied? How do YOU know who has repented? Only God knows the heart of men.

Cultural, philosophical and doctrinal changes within the former ICOC
I'm concerned with the suggestion that "leaders" of the mainline church apologized. There are no corporate leaders within the church of Christ who can offer such an apology. At best we should say that "some members" apologized. The principle of autonomy is important and even though most of us here know and understand it, some who read this will not be that familiar with the concept. JBEvans 11:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice, catch, Bryant, I fixed it. Junlee

As yet 184 Churches Agree and Commit to Plan for United Cooperation!
184--Karl 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Total churches agreeing so far: 334
221 This is super! --Karl 13:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

334--TransylvanianKarl 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What's super about it? a bunch of leaders are using an agreement to manipulate people and rob from them again.

35 More Churches Commit to Unity Plan!
Total churches: 256 --Karl 13:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Total churches agreeing so far: 296 --TransylvanianKarl 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 334 --TransylvanianKarl 09:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the discussion portion of Wik is to discuss tha article. It is not to provide running commentary. Just as one cannot update the score of a baseball game in the talk portion, you cannot update the membership or churches committed to this agreement. please stop. TB1

Dear vandal!
Dear 69.235.18.116 -user!

Why do you deleted my remarks? In the wikipedia it's call vandalism! Do you know it? --Karl 07:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: this IP adress: 69.235.18.116 user deleted remarks from the EU. --Karl 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:TransylvanianKarl
Why are you making so many edits? Why not just make a couple with lots of changes each? Some of your posts are strange: saying things like "The ICOC...[is] Sometimes known as the Mainline Church of Christ..."? This is not true. The mainline is the traditional churches of christ. I have never heard anyone call the ICOC the Mainline. I already changed one edit where you include a sentence on the 1979 would-be disciples in the crossroads history section. That doesn't seem to make sense. Could some of these stranger edits be because of your unfamiliarity with english? Rob 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry my english is very poor and my spelling is not good. The "crossroads history section" and "Mainline Church of Christ" are was erroneously editing sorry. I revised it.--Karl 16:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You should agree to have many of your changes reverted. You have just torn down a lot of quality work that was done over the past few months. --ma 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or an aspersion collection?
- :::Dear Minan! Please don't be a vandal. In the wikipedia it's call vandalism! Do you know it? We have to debate this things. You have to explain your pont of wiev. I have had enough of it. That is not an encyclopedia It is an aspersions collection. Why don't you go to "reveal organisation"? - If you want defamation about icoc,- ("Reveal" is an anti ICOC whispering campaign movement) But here the neutrality is a wikipedia requirement. You have to understand this. Please try understand.- sorry for my poor english--TransylvanianKarl 10:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Minan! (69.138.215.17) Why did you deleted this? This is vandalism!
 -What was wrong in this?

New Reformed and progressive International Churches Of Christ are autonomous!
Why did you deleted this? „The International Churches of Christ, is an autonomous…church…” and this why did you deleted?: Until May 15, 2006 total 296 Churches agree and Commit to Plan for United Cooperation. - Could you say for me why this sentence is disturb you? The article have to be topical!

When the ICOC history begins?
"The history of the International Churches of Christ begins in 1979," ?- This is not completely true. I revised it: „The roots of the International Churches of Christ lie in the Restoration Movement of the 19th century,” Why did you deleted this?

Why did you deleted the "stub" and "sectionstub" markers?
This article for a long while stub! Why did you deleted the incomplete sections?

"Church organization and services
Sectionstub

Congregational autonomy
Sectionstub

Evangelist, Preacher
Sectionstub

Other Leaders
Sectionstub

HOPE Worldwide relief organization
Sectionstub

Chemical recovery ministry
Sectionstub Please don't delete this relevant informations about ICOC! This article is very darker than the reality and for a long while isn't neutral. Please don't write back the special pleading edits. " And please help by adding to sectionstubs! --TransylvanianKarl 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

ICOC is not the "only one true Church" but a true Church.
I copy this sentence here.: "ICOC claiming itself as the only "true church" following the Bible."

I live in the ICOC. End I know this assertion is not true! I think our church is a true church. Not the one true church but a true church. It is possible, how be another true churches but i do not to know. Theoretically it is possible how somebody who is in another church come in for salvation. I revised it this sentence in the article. --TransylvanianKarl 16:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You lie, Transylvania Karl. What you have written is pure ICC/ICOC doublespeak.  You allow the possibility that somehow, somewhere, by some-near miracle, someone maybe, just maybe, might reach salvation without the ICC.  You do this so that, in PUBLIC, you can say that you don't think you are the "only ones saved".  But, in reality, at least pre-2003, the ICC clearly taught that it was the only true church.


 * How many times was it mentioned that such and such a city or country is "waiting" for the ICC to plant a church, and that there are currently (enter the exact population of the city or country) lost souls in need of the ICC's help? So, baring your mythical person who might get saved without you, the ICC has classically taught that it, and only it, provides the path to salvation and that (and I heard this said multiple times) "the denominations are all lost and going to hell".


 * Transylvania Karl, I am sure that cassette tapes could be produced showing your lie to be what it is. There are likley no shortage of taped sermons talking how everyone else is lost and going to hell but the ICC.  So, you can use your myth of the disciple on his own as a means of deception and evatsion, but we know what the ICC really believes.  And what the ICC, at least pre-2003, members were taught was to consider essentially everyone outside of the ICC to be lost and in need of being "reached out to".


 * At the very best what you've stated is a half-truth. But it is meant to deceive and evade.  By and large, the ICC has taught that only they are saved, baring that "exceedingly rare individual" who becomes a disciple without you.


 * Since the fall of Kip McKean, a few ICC congregations have broken away from the old ways and "admitted" that they aren't the only ones saved. But, are they really even ICC any longer? For those holding to the old ways, and to Kip's teachings (even if the denounce the man himself), there is no question: The ICC claims to be One and Only True Church and only its members are "true Christians".


 * In all your time in the ICC, have you ever personally met anyone from another sect of Christianity that was admitted to the ICC and considered to be saved already, not in need of your baptism? I was in the cult for over 12 years, and I never encountered as single such individual.


 * So, enough of your duplicity. We former members will expose ICC half-truths, evasions, deceptions, and lies.  Unless you belong to one of the congregations that have broken way from genuine, classic ICC teachings, you believe that only the ICC members are saved, except your exceedingly rare, if extant at all, mythical, miraculous person who managed to get saved without you.  But such an individual is ICC legend, no one I ever heard of went through the Discipleship study and was admitted to the ICC as an already-saved disciple.  No one.  Ever.  Not once.

KeithStump 09:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Answers for KeithStump

 * KeithStump:„ You lie, TransylvanianKarl ..... You allow the possibility that somehow, somewhere, by some-near miracle, someone maybe, just maybe, might reach salvation without the ICC. You do this so that, in PUBLIC, you can say that you don't think you are the "only ones saved". But, in reality, at least pre-2003, the ICC clearly taught that it was the only true church.
 * My answer: I do not dispute what was the pre-2003, I do not deleted this section: “Many members of the ICOC once claimed that only its members are saved, but as time has passed and controversy has arisen from such claims these members have altered their theological misunderstanding to include the fact" .... But the article have to be topical!

LA still preaches this - so you don't know what you are talking about. To this day several ICOC ministries still preach it.


 * KeithStump:„ How many times was it mentioned that such and such a city or country is "waiting" for the ICC to plant a church, and that there are currently (enter the exact population of the city or country) lost souls in need of the ICC's help? So, baring your mythical person who might get saved without you, the ICC has classically taught that it, and only it, provides the path to salvation and that (and I heard this said multiple times) "the denominations are all lost and going to hell".
 * My answer: I do not dispute what was the pre-2003, But the article have to be topical!
 * KeithStump:„ ... I am sure that cassette tapes could be produced showing your lie to be what it is. There are likley no shortage of taped sermons talking how everyone else is lost and going to hell but the ICC. So, you can use your myth of the disciple on his own as a means of deception and evatsion, but we know what the ICC really believes. And what the ICC, at least pre-2003, members were taught was to consider essentially everyone outside of the ICC to be lost and in need of being "reached out to".
 * My answer:I do not dispute what was the pre-2003, But the article have to be topical!
 * KeithStump:„ At the very best what you've stated is a half-truth. But it is meant to deceive and evade. By and large, the ICC has taught that only they are saved, baring that "exceedingly rare individual" who becomes a disciple without you.
 * My answer: Look! I live in Central Europe such country witch was near by 16th century Protestant Reformation. The (Reformed Church in Hungary and Transylvania are the largest branch of the Reformed movement) And here in Hungary was refomation movement too. I know very well the calvinism, and Lutherism movements historical roots. Hungary is the second best place, if somebody want to explore the origins and development of  calvinism and evangelicalism. In the library here are  many original documents and historical and critical essay about the teaching and origins of calvinism and evangelicalism. About my conviction is the Calvinism, and Lutheranism, are false teaching. And by my experience the different kind of denominations are teaching a different kind of false teaching, and this is to hamper and to jeopardizing the religious members salvation. But theoretically it is possible how somebody who is in another church come in for salvation. Because the way is written in the bible, and the Savior's personality  is not limited on organisations. But I belief in this: Luke 13/23-30 Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"  He said to them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' "But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'   "Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.' "But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'  "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out...."
 * KeithStump:„ Since the fall of Kip McKean, a few ICC congregations have broken away from the old ways and "admitted" that they aren't the only ones saved. But, are they really even ICC any longer? For those holding to the old ways, and to Kip's teachings (even if the denounce the man himself), there is no question: The ICC claims to be One and Only True Church and only its members are "true Christians".
 * My answer: I dont think that how should to generalize by reason of only one person.
 * KeithStump:„ In all your time in the ICC, have you ever personally met anyone from another sect of Christianity that was admitted to the ICC and considered to be saved already, not in need of your baptism? I was in the cult for over 12 years, and I never encountered as single such individual.
 * My answer:About 2004-was a guy "Agoston" who beforehand left the Mainline Church of Christ and after when  he has repented again he  hasn't  was  baptize again.
 * KeithStump:„ We former members will expose ICC half-truths, evasions, deceptions, and lies. Unless you belong to one of the congregations that have broken way from genuine, classic ICC teachings, you believe that only the ICC members are saved, except your exceedingly rare, if extant at all, mythical, miraculous person who managed to get saved without you.
 * My answer: Okay We ex "former members" will expose former members's half-truths, evasions, deceptions, and lies.(I'm an ex ”former member” but now a disciple again.) I can understand you very well, because  I used to be like you. I remember. This  quote was character changer for me, once when i really understood what does it mean: James 3/13 "Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.  But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness."  (The „impartial” word is about the hungarian bible wersion is evenhanded or reasonable.) This quote is helped me not only in the church relationships, but in my other relationships too. Because  beforehand I was very critical person and I was focused on the negative things and  that was so hard be to acknowledging about the good things.
 * KeithStump:„ But such an individual is ICC legend, no one I ever heard of went through the Discipleship study and was admitted to the ICC as an already-saved disciple. No one. Ever. Not once.
 * My answer:

Riddance from the liberal religion's pitfall.- I am an ex pentecostal-
Yes I think is very good, if we to check the repentance if somebody want to baptizing. How the candidate is really repented or not. A long time ago I was in a pentecostal organisation. I hope it is not to will come again where nobody told me: " you should repent." Just "you are saved." But my life it was not changed. I was in the untruthful liberal religion's pitfall. But now Im not a feelings follower pentecostal anymore. (see also: Libertarianism) --TransylvanianKarl 17:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You have ruined this article - it's really sad too. There was good info in here until you started babbling on and on. The purpose of this article is not about what you think or how pentascotals do things. Either edit this section and the others to make them relevant to the ICOC or I will delete them me - Keith Stump Responds:

Let me simply show how your responses, prove my claims. I again mention that SOME former ICC/ICOC congregations have undergone fundamental change, and aren't really associated with the cult in any substantive way. I don't know what the case is in your particular congregation. But, we need to speak of those that have not broken away from the ICC [even in absence of a centralized governance, the congregations still associate with one another, and still preach much the same things, even if they've toned some things down].

But first let me take note that you discovered a "true disciple" from the mainline churches of Christ. And, you had to go back two years to find one! You couldn't list off how many recent new members of your congregation got excepted as truly saved without the ICOC studies and baptism. In the three years since the Fall of McKean, you only managed to find a single person. It wasn't a long list of hundreds of individuals, just the one. [Who knows, maybe you can even round up one or two more, if you looked really hard.]

Admittedly, even finding just one is more than I expected. But, it doesn't invalidate my primary point. Let us look at it this way. Can you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations, which covers all of the major Christian groups. Kindly provide here, a list of those groups which you know, or even suspect, are consisted primarily of genuine, actual, real, disciples of Christ. Let us say that, by your best estimates, the church need only have 60% real, actual, saved, disciples of Christ. That should do it. Which of these many Christian groups would you suspect have at least 60% saved members. And, to make it even easier on you, let us limit it to "active members", not people who have simply been on the churches' membership roles but don't attend.

Please, demonstrate to us that the ICOC isn't the only "True Church" by specifying what the other "True Churches" are.

Now to your responses. Most of them amounted to "But the article have to be topical! (sic) or other evasions. In other words, you chose not to make a substantive evaluation of my words, dismissed them as the words of some "bitter" ex-member and gave them no further thought.  I shall come back to this.

After a diatribe about your country's history (and you suggest that I'm not being topical?) You state the following:


 * “And by my experience the different kind of denominations are teaching a different kind of false teaching, and this is to hamper and to jeopardizing the religious members salvation. But theoretically it is possible how somebody who is in another church come in for salvation.”

So, you admit that salvation in other forms of Christianity is, at best, "theoretically" possible. In other words, salvation is not the norm except for the ICC. That is just what I said. You admit some "theoretical" chance of someone getting saved without the ICOC, just so you can say in public that you don't believe you're the only one's saved. But, you don't really believe that other groups are saved, as a rule. You allow the rare individual who somehow manages to get saved without you.


 * “Because the way is written in the bible, and the Savior's personality is not limited on organisations.”

But then you go on to espouse that only a "theoretical" few outside of the ICC are going to be saved. Your quotation of cherry-picked scripture to back up your beliefs, proves the presence of the belief. The issue is not whether your belief is "biblically correct", it is whether you maintain the belief. At one minute you are confirming it, the other denying it. If the ICOC is only "a true church" and not "the only true church", kindly do as I asked. Pick out from the list of Christian group that I linked you to, which are the other "true churches". If you cannot provide such a list, then it proves what I have said. The ICOC congregations (barring those former ICOC congregations that have totally separated from the ICOC and its dogma) continue to teach that they are the "true church".

You then go on to accuse me of "bitterness" and state, "Because beforehand I was very critical person and I was focused on the negative things and  that was so hard be to acknowledging about the good things." In other words, you are not willing to face, admit, and address extant problems in the ICOC. You only feel free to talk about the good things. I shall return to this.

You end up by admitting the the ICOC still "counts the cost" with its prospective new members. In outsider's terms, as you admitted, the ICOC leaders/members render a verdict on whether a prospective member has "really repented or not". And by admitting whether they are a "candidate for baptism", to clarifying things for outsiders, this means whether they are ready, in the ICOC leader's opinions, to get saved. This means that outsiders aren't saved until the ICOC baptizes them, with the except of one guy you heard about a couple of years ago.

In my online critique of the ICOC, revised during the chaos of 2003, I made certain proclamations about how the ICOC deceives and how it programs members to respond to criticism. To demonstrate that, excepting a few congregations that aren't really "ICOC" anymore, the ICOC hasn't fundamentally changed, even if its leadership structures are different now and even if rhetoric made in public has been toned down.

My article may be found at: www.reveal.org/library/psych/stumpk.html

Here is one paragraph from my essay:


 * "Poisoning the Well" is a debate term meaning to discredit a speaker preemptively so that his or her arguments will be dismissed without due examination of their validity. The ICC uses this tactic with great skill. Negative statements about the ICC are dubbed "persecution" or "spiritual pornography" or "opposing God". The ICC has outright forbidden members to read such materials or to communicate with certain ICC critics. Knowing that it cannot fully prevent the membership from encountering such information, the ICC poisons the well by saying that such works as this essay represent "isolated incidents" or things from a long time ago or "bitterness" of "disgruntled former members". They are quick to say that such statements are "just one side of the story" and that since one cannot hear the other side of the story, then the member must avoid such materials. (I find this one of the more bizarre tactics since not listening to the ICC critics necessitates that one will only hear one side of the story, that of the ICC – if the ICC allows members to hear anything at all about the claims.) The ICC has accused critics of twisting their stories and presenting them in such a way as they "seem true". Actually, the stories are true. Although it is possible that some may have embellished, the ICC has ample abuses so that there really is no "need" to do so. The practical effect of poisoning the well is that the ICC doesn't have to respond to criticisms on a point-by-point basis, rather it simply brushes criticism aside with some lofty statement."

This is exactly what you did. You accused me of bitterness, and swept my points aside by saying that "But the article have to be topical!" (sic) There was no substantive discussion of the key points I made. You just brushed it all aside, claiming I'm "bitter" and focused on the negatives. Whether I am "bitter" or not is not relevant to the issue. Who I am is not relevant to the issue. Only the facts relevant. Even in your evasions, you demonstrated just what I said: The ICOC continues to teach that it is The Only True Church, and that, barring a few (to use your term) "theoretical" exceptions, salvation is found almost exclusively, if not totally exclusively, in the ICOC. Even if, post-2003 the ICOC might allow a few "theoretically" saved people into the congregation as being pre-saved. But, they'll likely be urged to get rebaptized once the next reconstruction/recommitment talks come around.

Even you admitted that when you left the ICOC, you stopped being a "disciple", which means that you lost your salvation. Only by rejoining the ICOC, did you recover your salvation. There was no other "True Church" for you to go to. It was the ICOC or hell.

But, let us look at the pattern that you've exhibited here on Wikipedia. I wrote a detailed account of how problems are evaded in the ICOC. You have shown that the same methods of self-deception are still being used. Here is an abbreviated version of what I wrote back in 2001, and revised in 2003.


 * The Illusion of Change": By the term "illusion of change", I reference two related scenarios. The first is the fostering of a belief that a situation is in the past when it is not. The second is the use of superficial adjustments to a problem, which focuses the attention toward trivial, surface issues and away from the problem itself. Both scenarios have the effect of making those affected think that problem no longer exists. The ICC uses both of these. This element of the ICC subculture promotes control by the leadership by causing the ordinary members not to acknowledge or address serious problems.


 * For the ordinary members, there is no means of addressing existing problems of the group nor developing plans to contend with them. Members must be silent about such issues, until such a time as a leader states that the wrongs were mistakes made in the past. Prior to such a pronouncement, it must be denied that the problems exist.


 * The viewpoint generally fostered is that the ICC in general has changed, corrected all wrongs and that any claimed problems are not the way the ICC is any more.


 * The only exception to this practice of treating problems in the past tense is to state that the group is not committed enough, not working hard enough, not baptizing enough – this admission must always be couched in terms of the group needing to work harder to achieve its ambitions.


 * If something bad has happened then it is always in the past, it is time forgive and forget. This very way of thinking allows abuse to continue by preventing open and serious dialog amongst the members.


 * Even I, a former member, have received emails from current members to the effect that I am wrong to continue to oppose the ICC since all these problems are supposedly in the past.

Anticipating your next approach, let met cut you off. I do, indeed, support forgiving others. Forgiveness is a very good thing, but it can be used for abusive purposes. Forgiveness is not just letting something go unaddressed (unless it is a trivial issue). Forgiveness serves to repair a friendship and to promote growth in the relationship. But, it can be abused by such things as repeatedly doing something, demanding forgiveness each time, but never meaningfully working to change. In that situation, the abuse continues and the relationship cannot grow. This is just what the ICC has done.

But, let me finish by restating my challenge. If indeed the ICOC no longer claims to be The One True Church, then kindly provide a list of non-ICOC (including former ICOC congregations) groups/demoninations that are aslo considered to be “True Churches” by the ICOC. If you cannot list them out, it can only mean that the ICOC doesn't teach that there are any. And, please don't insult our intelligences by refering to some hypothetical “True Church” of which you aren't aware. Just stick to the list of groups available on Wikipedia's List of Christian Denominations. If you aren't the only ones on the list that are “True Churches”, kindly tell us what the others are.

KeithStump 08:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nearly a month has past and I still do not see any list provided by TransylvanianKarl specifying which Christian groups which haven't had association with the ICOC that are also True Christian Churches. Unless I have missed something, TransylvanianKarl has not been able to specify a single group outside the now-splintered ICOC congregations which sports at least 60% of its active members being saved Christian/disciples. This is of no surprise. I cannot say that TransylvanianKarl will never name such a group (perhaps, he might find a church of Christ congregation that has adopted Kip McKean's/Chuck Lucas's dogma without officially affiliating itself with the ICOC at any time). But, I just want to point out that, in the continued absense of TransylvanianKarl being able to provide us with a list of Christian groups outside the sphere of the ICOC that are saved, we must be forced to provisionally conclude that he doesn't believe there are such groups, whatever else he might say. He can say that it is "theoretically possible" to get saved without aid the ICOC, or whatever it becomes hereafter, and he can say that there might be some congregation out there that is saved. But, until he can name specific Christian groups, we must conclude that he is not being honest.

To any third party that reads this material, kindly realize that TransylvanianKarl is doing the very sort of thing I have claimed: he is lying, perhaps even to himself. The ICOC, before and after its splintering, maintained claimed this rare individual who gets saved without them. Who knows, there might be a dozen or so in the whole world! Using that excedingly rare exception to the rule, they then use half-truths to lie about their beliefs. They claim they don't believe they're the only ones saved, so that an un-informed person will assume that they think as most Protestants do, that you're a Christian whatever your denomination. But they don't believe that. They believe, with rare exception, that they alone are saved. Perhaps it has become a less rare estimate in recent years (maybe there are upward of a hundred non-ICOC Christians in the world!).

Make no mistake about it, the ICOC churches (with a very few notable exceptions in a few congregations that are no longer truly ICOC groups) continue to believe that they are THE True Christians. They believe that something like 99.99999% of persons claiming to be Christians are not "True" Christians, and are not saved, and are headed to hell. They believe that nearly all Christians in the world today are members ICOC-related churches. Furthermore, if one excludes the "mainline" churches of Christ (as the ICOC calls them) from the picture, it can safely be said that the ICOC believe that virtually zero "True" Christians exist outside the ICOC and mainline churches of Christ.

Again, TransylvanianKarl or any ICOC proponent, kindly provide a list of denominations that are saved if I am in error here. I am not holding my breath. KeithStump 06:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Brothers in faith
Dear KeithStump! Sorry. But my english is poor. I will translate your opinions! But this is a little bit difficult for me.

Who is my brother? About my persuasion, every religious Christians who believe in Christ is my brother in faith. God will judge who will go to heaven who will not. Im who is know better what is in ICOC, because I am that who is living in the ICOC. Okay? --TransylvanianKarl 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC) ......

Karl,

You are avoiding my question like the old-style ICOC (and, I have little doubt, the current ICOC). I asked for the NAMES OF OTHER CHRISTIAN churches that were "true" Christian churches. You refuse to answer because the ICOC, baring a few splinter groups, still believes that they are the only "true" church. If you believed that there were other "true" churches, you'd be able to name them. You don't believe they exist, therefore you pretend not to understand and evade my question. Your English, whatever its limitations, isn't all that bad. You know exactly what I mean, but I have trapped you in a situation that shows you to be a liar. So, you play ignorant. Few of the readers here are fooled.

<B>Again, I ask, what are the names of the other "true" Christian churches?</B> If you cannot name any, that means you believe that only the ICOC-related congregations are "true" churches. I called you a liar, and I think I am quite safe from any charge of libel. It is a lie for you to claim that the ICOC is "a true church" if there are no other "true churches"; that would mean, as I have shown your lies to all, you believe that the ICOC groups are "THE true church", not just one of them. KeithStump

Time to create a separate page for listing all the congregations
I'm stunned that no one seems to have created a subpage for just the listing of all the congregations. It's a helpful list, but presently throws off the balance of the overall article and makes it far too long from a technology standpoint. Please note: I am not in any way entering into any doctrinal or technical discussions as to which congregations belong on the list. I am only suggesting it's time that a separate page be created for that list.Lawikitejana 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I question whether the editor who created this list understands the subtlety of "An international list of Churches of Christ" vs. "A list of International Churches of Christ." The "International Church of Christ" is not the "Church of Christ", in spite of the similarity of the names. The last I heard, Kip McKean had only a handful of churches who were willing to follow his leadership, a seemingly important element of membership in the ICOC. Zen611 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: the source of this list seems to be http://www.icocinfo.org/contacts.html. I haven't found out for certain, but I still suspect that this group is not the "Boston Movement" which has at one time styled itself the "International Church of Christ", and was originally the topic of this arcticle. Zen611 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This most certainly is the "International Church of Christ" or "Boston Movement" history - that web site is authored by a member of that group. This Transylvanian Karl guy likes to zealously guard this article and mow over anyone who tries to edit the listing or any other part of the article. Very typical cult behavior. -ma

Zen611! I agree whit you!

 * The separate page is complete.: "List of International Churches of Christ Congregations"! (thanks  to  Rob)! --TransylvanianKarl 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Minans vandalism again!
Minan! Please read the wikipedia's official policy about wandalism If you will continue the vandalism I will ask for halp for wikipedia administrators. --TransylvanianKarl 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism are you referring to, Karl? I cant see any in the recent past... Rob 02:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes! This vandalism now was here in the talkpage, not in the article: [] Minan deleted sections from my text--TransylvanianKarl 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On the Contrary, Tranny: I would love for the administrators to see your dictatorial takeover of the ICOC page and have them boot YOU. Tranny Karl, you are an Asshole of the highest ICOC order. Go to hell. --ma 01:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He has been anything but a dictator. Karl has devoted lots of time to this page, and put in lots of work. No vital information has been lost (that I can see--if you see some, let me know), and lots has been gained. Sure, his english isn't the best, and it can be cleaned up a bit, but he has seriously done a lot and I think he has done great. We should all thank him for the work he has put into this page. If you have something to acuse him of, then do it. But when all you offer is name calling and deleting sections of the talk page, how can we take you seriously? Rob 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Zen 611 puts it best - "the tyranny of the persistent". I must agree with ma, because Karl has himself taken out and "vandalized" large parts of the article that mentioned criticism of the church since April 06. Saying he's dictatorial, IMO, is not an exaggeration. -dm

I agree he is a dictator, and he is trying to control the article. Also I don't need anyone telling me who I should be thanking Rob Tb1


 * Wow. You guys can be really unfriendly.  Bottom line: show me the "large parts of the article that mentioned criticism of the church since April 06", and put them back in.  I don't know of any he removed, but if he did, and they deserve to be here, put them back in.  The ICOC messed up a lot, and some of these things are deserving of public disgrace.  Rob 05:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Rob, do you not know how to look for yourself? You came here making proclamations about how folks should be thanking Karl, so investigate it yourself. TB1

Some examples of Tranny K's ICOC-biased edits: A Tyranny of Persistance
Here are only a few examples we pulled together of Tranny K's edits that consistently skew the article towards a pro-ICOC bias. The sheer number of his edits after April 2006 indicate Tranny's "tyranny of persistence" in this article. -dm and -ma 66.65.134.55 18:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

'''June 29 06 08:23: Tranny K deleted the following external links. His claim: "blogs and chat sites are improper for an encyclopedia." Wrong (in this case). These sites offer alternative points of view under External Links.'''
 * ICOC Blogspot Tracks topics from the various ICOC discussion sites.
 * The ICC Discussion Forum A discussion board about the ICOC moderated by former member critics

According to External Links, the blog/forum rule "does not override the list of What Should Be Linked To," which itself mandates the following: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." The ICC Discussion and ICOC Blogspot sites qualify as "Should Be Linked To" links as they are prominent sites that offer alternative and mixed perspectives on the ICOC.
 * These links summarize very active interactions and discussions between members, former members and others that have made a major impact on ICOC; for example, Henry Kriete's letter was read and distributed widely largely through the ICC Discussion Forum membership (a section could be added on the impact of the ICC DF in this article).
 * Earlier discussions on Talk also recognized ICOC Blogspot as valid because of its coherent, ordered summary of topics from various discussions, as well as its excellent link list. Yet he (and others) repeatedly delete this link!!! (Oh no, it's "spiritual pornography!!")

'''July 19 06: Tranny K deleted the following, and his reason: "This is not true." Wrong.'''
 * "The enforcement, overtly and/or covertly, of an extensive set of behavioral norms created by the leaders governing such issues as dating, financial management, marriage, living arrangements, and monetary contribution requirements."


 * This is largely recognized by the former and current ICOC members as true, as can be seen on all ICOC-related web sites and discussions, and was the basis of Henry Kriete's letter, a document that is part of the common ICOC history and led to a major breakdown of the LA-led ICOC structure in 2003.
 * The statement itself is factual and not stated in an opinionated manner (but IMO, it does look like an example of a typical ICOC member reaction of denial).

'''July 24 06: Tranny K decided to add some bible quotes to justify the descriptions of controversial ICOC practices. These have no place here (!), as interpretations of these quotes are clearly a matter of opinion. Some examples:'''
 * In response to "Elitist ideology. Sometimes members of the Church referred to non-members as "in the world" and discourage interaction with these people for any purpose other than to recruit them into the church. Members will be encouraged to go to other members businesses and remain a close knit network of "Disciples"."
 * [Bible quote added by Tranny] 1 Peter 2/9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.


 * In response to "Much of the controversy surrounds the practice of "discipling", in which each member is assigned to a "discipling partner" with whom the member is expected to discuss every aspect of his or her life including, but not limited to, individual Bible study, daily habits, sins, relationships with the opposite sex, financial contribution to the church, and efforts to recruit new members..."
 * [Bible quote and opinionated afterthought added by Tranny] Mathew's gospel. 28.18-20"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." The disciples want to obey to Christ. And disciples have to teach, other disciples and have to help to other disciples obey to Christ.

'''July 17, then Aug 1-6 06: Tranny added a bizarrely huge section on all of the former ICOC churches' web sites, divided by world region. It took up a massive part of the main page and made it look like a directory page for icoc.org.'''

''' Sept 6 06 19:59: Tranny removed information on the Indianapolis split (below). The Indianapolis event is a significant part of the common ICOC history and demonstrates Kip McKean's hold on the churches at the time. It is clearly narrated on Reveal.com and other authoritative sites written by ICOC critics. His reason: "Reference?"'''
 * "The first major challenge of the International Churches of Christ leadership occurred in 1994, when Ed Powers, evangelist for the Indianapolis Church of Christ, openly questioned several of the more controversial aspects of the International Churches of Christ, including mandated giving and the exclusivity doctrine of salvation. The Indianapolis Church of Christ was surpassing 1,000 in attendance at that time and was a major congregation in the Midwest region of the United States. In a special meeting of the congregation, Ed Powers challenged several of the International Churches of Christ -enforced practices which he identified as quenching the joy and spiritual health of the members of the congregation. Upon learning of this special meeting, leaders from across the United States, including Kip McKean, flew into Indianapolis and effectively split the church. As a result, there were now two congregations in Indianapolis: the newly formed Indianapolis International Church of Christ and the now-estranged and renamed Circle City Church. Ed Powers later retired from the ministry of the Circle City Church and Keith Bradbury became evangelist for the congregation."

I have made the requested revisions. None of these were sections that shouldn't be included. I rearranged the external links for a better flow--dont know about making each subsection an actual subsection though instead of bolding them...i did it and am rethinking it. Anyway, a part of being in the ICOC today, and being a disciple in general, is being able to admit the sins of the past, and accept the consequences of them. I will put them out on display for all to see. As the Acapella song puts it: "I'm a wretch, I'm a worm, I'm a no good sinner". It's not just a catch phrase: it's the truth. Though I have only been a member for a relatively short time, I did agree with many of the things the ICOC taught that were blatantly wrong, and acted on those beliefs in sinful ways. I put them out for public ridicule, and I appologise to those I harmed (Nick I remember is one mistake I very much regret).

I hope that this site will be a little more civilized now. Would everyone please calm down a bit? This is nothing to get so worked up about. Stop attacking each other, and stop fighting.

Karl, if you want to talk about why these things should be in here, and get a view point from someone in the ICOC, let me know. Rob 21:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn Rob still trying to tell people what to do. Typical TB1


 * My intention was only to try to make peace. Rob 20:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice intent, however you came in telling people they should be thanking Karl. I don't see how that would make peace. Tb1

One person has two name. It is okay in the wikipedia?

 * ["dm", and "ma" is the same person! What an interesting thing!] --TransylvanianKarl 20:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We're actually two separate people, but ma and I do live together. -dm

Tranny Karl's changes have been dictatorial.

 * Oh, so so familiar.... that unenlightened, authoritarian, ICOC personality style of denial and distraction.... -ma

No personal attacks, and personalities!!!

 * ma and dm! Please read the "No personal attacks" -article and please put it in practice. This is basic wikipedia requirement. --TransylvanianKarl 09:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to hell? And other BARBARIC feedbacks are okay here!

 * Go to hell? And other feedbacks is okay here? What is the wikipedia? Chat/discussion forum? Or an encyklopedia? The english wiki is considerably infirm, and damnable! This is same!)--TransylvanianKarl 09:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You're a dictator and idiot Karl. Tb1

Hear hear. -ma

Several International church sites
All Nations * Boston * Bay Area* Brasília * Budapest* Chicago* Glasgow * Greater Atlanta * Greater Baltimore * Greater Las Vegas* Hong Kong * Kansas City * Los Angeles * Lexington * Limassol * Madrid * Mexico* Milano * Montréal* Nashville * New York* New Orleans* Novosibirsk * Philadelphia * Savannah * Seoul* Seattle * Sofia * Springfield * St. Petersburg * Sydney * Taiwan * Tokyo * Toronto * Winnipeg* Vladivostok

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.115.2 (talk • contribs)

Merger?
No. The COC article and the International Churches of Christ should stand separatley and must not be confused. The differences between the two are extensive as are their recent histories.--TransylvanianKarl 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Forget that. It would even be dishonest to do such. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.12.215 (talk • contribs) 11 June 2007

POV tag
I've tagged this article, because it appears to be heavily POV. The entire 'changes' section seems very biased against 'Kip McKean', with sentences like: "The vast majority of churches within the International Churches of Christ have  not endorsed McKean's plans and few appear to be inclined to do so in the future." If this first part is true, it needs a source. The second part probably shouldn't be included at all; it's a subjective evaluation. "All of the McKeans' adult children had disassociated themselves from the  movement. This was not the only issue for the sabbatical, but it was a   visible 'thorn' in Kip McKean's side." Again, this type of language seems inappropriate. "The official website claims the church had 135,039 members in 434 congregations  by January of 2003. However, such figures are widely disputed outside of   International Churches of Christ." Are they? How about a source for this? "Furthermore, while many members enjoy the freer, less constrictive fellowship,  many also lament the loss of closeness and constant biblical counseling that   were a part of the assigned discipling relationships. While a significant   number of those relationships were perceived as authoritarian and abusive,   many members also acknowledge some of those relationships were also extremely   helpful, faith-building and, sometimes, life-saving." This is either original research or plain speculation. "Prior to 2003, the church claimed a divorce rate of 0%." That's a pretty wild claim to be cited without a source. "The International Churches of Christ believe that the doctrine of once saved,  always saved is flawed and is very easy to see through scriptures like Matthew 24:12-13" This sentence is clearly inappropriate.

In conclusion -- I've never heard of the ICoC, and it's possible that much of this information is factually accurate; but the article needs to be reworked by someone neutral and knowledgeable, and some sources should be cited. --Xiaphias 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro - ICOC writers
If you do not want your writings and edits in this article constantly changed, my advice to you is to start this entire article over and write it from the vantage point of the history, beliefs, philosophies, practices in the ICOC of the past and present. Along with that, it will be imperative that you embrace the reality that the ICOC is a distinct religious body than the Churches of Christ and the Restoration Movement. While your church structure has changed in recent years, the reality is that your current church fellowship has evolved from the Boston/International Church of Christ movement. Therefore, your history begins in the early 1980's, the late 1970's at earliest. Your movement is not part of the Restoration Movement. Your movement is distinct from Churches of Christ. In any event, have the decency and the work ethic to write a distinct article rather than cutting and pasting chunks of the article about Churches of Christ, attempting to make your religious heritage similar to another one. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.3.37 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 July 2007

Why would my edits from the other day have been reverted??!?
I'm glad to see most of my changes were restored, but the note about vandalism troubles me greatly. You seem to have been calling for a more appropriate version, Xiaphias, but you reverted positive changes and called them vandalism?!? I have knowledge about the subject, and I added references. The Trannyk version is so biased and poorly formatted, it's laughable.

No, I am not neutral, but there is no one with first-hand knowledge who is. The official doctrine of this church (it does exist, does anyone have a copy of the First Principles?) is kept well hidden but thier manipulative ways and methods are well documented.

I will continue to try to make this a higher-quality article that is not slanted in the cheap, transparent way that Tranny K would have it, but with promenant mention of the very relevent controversy and criticism.

Mproy 04:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC) mproy

How can we make this factual and then lock it down?
It's been done before, for the scientology article and others.

Tranny K has vandalized my edits in the following ways:
 * Removed valid critical references (Boston Globe, Chronicle of Higher Education, etc.)
 * Add dozens of propaganda links (from sites directly owned by the church!!!!)
 * Added the inappropriate, untrue and obviously biased "all-the-bad-stuff-stopped-when-kip-left" verbiage to any criticism he allowed to remain.

Xiaphias, what happened to you? You obviously recognized that this was barely short of propaganda, then reversed efforts to make it more encylopedic.

Tranny K, if the church has changed so much, why so much deceit and propagandizing? Your efforts do nothing but cast doubt on the idea that the church has chenged at all. Your church has hurt many people, and you have made relentless efforts to cover that up. As has been mentioned before, this is exactly the kind of information control that the church is infamous for and part of the justification for the "cult" label. Your actions speak for themselves.

Mproy 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen!
Thanks Mproy! The reality is that this movement is still in many ways up to its old tricks. Many of these writers, if they have come into the ICC in the last decade likely don't even know what their own religious denomination is all about at the core. Again, if any of you are pro-ICC and want to make a good and truthful article here, quit cutting info from the Church of Christ article and pasting onto the ICC article. Embrace the ICC for what it is - a movement that is only about 25 years old. Realize the fact that the ICC is not a body within the Restoration Movement. If you want to be part of the Churches of Christ, you'll leave your ICC congregation and identify with a Church of Christ. True repentence from what the ICC "was," would also mean giving up the cult practices, manipulating, etc. and even returning property that was wrested from Churches of Christ in past years. In any event, just make an original and truthful article here or get used to EVERY EDIT YOU MAKE IN THIS ARTICLE THAT BEARS ANY RESEMBLANCE TO CHURCHES OF CHRIST BEING REMOVED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.10.3 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 July 2007

Ah yes, I was going to mention the deceitful "co-opting" of the Church of Christ, too. Thanks Mproy 19:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to worry about Churches of Christ "co-opting" the ICC. We've had to spend enough time in the past explaining the ICC's use of the title "Church of Christ" and how we don't approve of their practices.

Of course not. I hope I was clear that it is the ICC that is trying to imply a relationship where there is none. How can anyone (I'm looking at you, Tranny K) knowingly spread misinformation all the while claiming the org they represent has put such things behind them? Mproy 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's either a whole organization or it isn't
A further note on the continued effort to try to imply a link between the ICOC and mainline Churches of Christ ...

The biased contributors have gone out of thier way to downplay the undeniable criticism by sayng it was "some churches within the ICOC" but conversely, if one or two churches reaches out to the CoC and gets anything warmer than a door slammed in their face, the relationship deserves a heading? Nope, this goes away. Mproy 00:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay Transylvania and any other pro-ICC folks - regardless of how much sugar you want to coat it with, the religion you are in is a cult and is very unhealthy and is absolutely an extremely misguided attempt at Christianity. Yes, you are Christians individually, but your organization is wrong. You make claims that it's not what it used to be but I can tell you firsthand your people are still practicing the aggressive, pressure based, annoying type of evangelizism that is not found in the Bible. I know first hand because I've seen it recently and know people who are being harassed to come to their meetings. While the thought may be there to not be what your organization was in years past, the reality is that the cultic attitude is ingrained in those of you who have been in the ICC in the past. This article is not complete unless it refers to the reality of the ICC being labeled as a cult and that the ICC conducts and approves of such practices. You want that to change - then disband your churches and encourage members to find new congregations where they can re-learn their faith and lifestyle. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.106.113 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 2 August 2007 (You can see his, or her contribs 129.252.106.113)

Moderation Requested Please
ICC is, from a psychological point of view, a cult in that they practice brainwashing, fatigue, and forbid contact with family and friends. Yet not surprisingly members of the ICC have taken it upon themselves to remove any reference to this from the main article. is there some procedure or policy that can me implemented to prevent this constant censorship/deletion? Sharktacos 06:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)