Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 2

Some ICOC/ICC members keep deleting factual information I put in?'
Every time I try to put some factual information into the ICOC/ICC page it gets deleted. WHY?!!! Qewr4231 (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I did and it was deleted:

ABC News 20/20 did an investigative report on the International Churches of Christ. ABC News 20/20 got opinions and statements from the ICOC and former members of the ICOC. You will need windows media player to see this ABC News 20/20 investigative report. You can see that report here: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv

Why?

I added this because I want people to see facts about the ICOC from an unbiased news source such as ABC. ABC gave ex-members of the ICOC/ICC a chance to respond and ABC gave the ICOC/ICC a chance to respond. Both sides weighed in on the cult debate. Why do people keep deleting links to the ABC News 20/20 investigative report on the ICOC/ICC? I think current ICOC/ICC members are making these edits in the hopes of squashing any negative factual evidence on the ICOC/ICC to make the ICOC/ICC Wikipedia article a pro-ICOC and pro-ICC article. Qewr4231 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Another Edit

The International Churches of Christ have been surrounded by controversy over the years; media sources from Christianity Today (an evangelical periodical) to town newspapers to popular magazines (such as Rolling Stone) have included articles about members and by former members. There have been TV exposés such as "Believe It or Else" on ABC's 20/20, on 10/15/1993.You will need windows media player to view the following report: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv

Why?

I thought people should see the ABC News 20/20 investigative report that the article mentions in this paragraph so I added a link to the original ABC News 20/20 Investigative report that can be viewed using Windows Media Player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Another Edit

Bible Talks

Bible Talk small groups of disciples that meet usually once a week. They can meet almost anywhere, including college dormitories, restaurants, and members' houses. Bible Talks, or 'Family Groups', are designed so that disciples can read the Bible together and build relationships with others in the church. All are encouraged to invite guests as a way for the guest to be introduced to the Church in a more informal setting.[53]

There is a group called Cults On Campus(http://www.cultsoncampus.com/) that reports on cult and cultist activity at universities around the USA. I found the following article listed on their website:

"The Story of One Woman Leaving the International Church of Christ - by Drew Bratcher, Washingtonian Magazine, Washington, DC (Photos of Jenny Hunter included.)

A straight-A senior at Georgetown went to a Bible-study group. But the promise of heaven wound up turning her life into hell...

...Not long after joining the International Church of Christ, Jenny Hunter stood on Key Bridge considering whether suicide was better than life as a church disciple...

...The church recruited on college campuses...

...In January 2006, a year after returning home, Jenny entered Wellspring, a cult-recovery center in Ohio...In her two weeks at Wellspring, she found people who understood what had happened to her....

...She has also started a nonprofit, the Alliance for Cult Recovery & Education, to inform college students about cults... "

The above summary written by Cults on Campus (http://www.cultsoncampus.com/) was taken from the following Washingtonian news article: http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/8429.html The Washingtonian news article was also discussed on the ICC Discussion page: http://forums.delphiforums.com/ICCdiscussion/messages?msg=21926.1

Why?

I wanted people to know the real facts about ICOC/ICC Bible talks and not just the pro-ICOC/pro-ICC version. I included proper sources to legitimate websites and magazines. One of the sources is even an ICOC/ICC website itself. I wanted people to see what happens at Bible talks and how Bible talks are used by the ICOC/ICC as a recruiting tool. Bible talks aren't just Bible Studies. Bible talks are meetings that are held anywhere for the purpose of recruiting new members into the ICOC/ICC and the sources I posted are evidence that Bible Talks are used for new member recruiting. Qewr4231 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete my posts on this talk page as they explain why I made the edits that I did Qewr4231 (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone screwed with the quotes that I added - Some of those quotes have been made to look like pro-ICOC/ICC quotes. Some of the added material is not part of the original quotes from the ICOC/ICC website that I took them from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Former Member Of The International Churches of Christ Tells His Experiences
I am a former member of the International Churches of Christ. I was in the ICOC from 1993 until 2007. I left the ICOC because of the following practices that lead me to believe that the ICOC is a cult:

1. One-on-one daily discipling. Each member had a discipler with whom each member had to keep in daily contact with and obey.

2. Financial Contributions. 10% of one's income is required a a contribution. Often members were encouraged to give 20% up to even 50% of their incomes to the cult. Twice a year members would give 20 times their weekly contribution in what was called a "Special Contribution." I've seen people empty out savings accounts and give their life savings to the cult. I've seen people sell businesses and give the monies to the cult. I've seen young people go without food in order to give to the cult.

3. Forced Dating and Planned marriages. I've seen the cult force people to date and force people to get married. I've seen the cult force people to stop dating and force people not to get married. Dating is required every Saturday for all single members. Members can only date who the cult approves of and no member may date anyone outside the cult.

4. Cult households. All single members are required to live together in apartments. This makes it easier for the cult to control members. Married couples are considered a household. Marriages are regulated. The cult will regulate sexual relations among married couples, finances among singles and married couples, and day-to-day living situations of all members. Basically the leadership goes up through the discipling chain, through the bible talk leaders, house church leaders, area leaders, etc.

5. Forced fasting. Whenever a leader calls one to fast that person or congregation had better fast or get punished.

6. Punishment. Punishment is dished out in what is called "rebuking." Punishment may be physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, etc. Punishment is mostly abusive designed to shame a person into obeying the cult leaders.

7. Forced sin confession meetings. Once a week members are required to attend group sin confession meetings. Each member would go before the group, confess his/her sins, and get some punishment.

8. Attend all meetings of the body even if they are daily meetings. Failure to attend meetings will lead to punishment.

9. Give the cult all of your personal information. Name, address, credit card numbers, bank account numbers. . . let the cult know everything.

10. Members are not allowed to disobey leaders as leaders are appointed representatives of God. If disobeying God is a sin then disobeying a leader appointed by God is even worse a sin.

And now, for something completely different...
So, I rewrote this article. It was a mess of conflicting interests -- one could surmise that most of the individual edits were good, but they didn't fit together cogently; it seemed biased, though it was at times unclear in which direction. One of the flaws, I think, was that the authors were afraid to use the word "cult". This is a legitimate fear, of course, because one doesn't want to seem biased; however, if an NPOV-editor omits the term from an article like this, he'll feel obligated to embed it somehow within the text -- that is, he'll want the reader to come to the conclusion that the organization is a cult or cult-like (because this is accurate by all accounts) but without saying it outright he'll perhaps compensate for the word's absence with a slightly undue anti-ICoC bias. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what it seemed like to me.

Anyways, I wrote this basically from scratch, because I wasn't sure what in the existing article was trustworthy and what was not. I'm accustomed to doing research, and I enjoy it; I sought out the most reliable, scholarly sources I could find on the web. It was complicated, of course, by three facts: (1) you can't trust the organization itself, (2) you can't trust those organizations which utterly condemn the organization, (3) these two resources comprise the bulk of available data. I did manage do find a good deal of fairly scholarly material dating to the mid-90s, when the ICoC was at its prime; but it's changed considerably since then, and I wanted to make the reader aware of that. Still, the cult-like tendencies remain, at least in places, as evidenced by the several recent news stories I've cited.

(I agree that the ICOC/ICC, the International Christ Church, both Kip Mckean's new movement and the remaining movement which got rid of Kip Mckean are still cults and very cult-like. It appears that the only thing that has changed is that Kip Mckean got thrown out of the first cult, the ICOC, and went on to start his own cult.  So now there are two cults; Kip Mckean's cult and the original cult.) Qewr4231 (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A note about me, in case you're wondering: I don't really give a damn about ICoC; or at least, I didn't at the onset. I encountered this article (as most) by random chance, and decided it would be a good candidate for a complete rewrite. I think I'm in a good position to evaluate it objectively: as a non-Christian, I view it from as far a distance as, I suspect, it may be viewed.

As for the images -- I crafted them myself. I intend to modify the pyramid a little; I'm not 100% satisfied with it. The map, though, I think turned out perfectly. The original had a dirth of visual stimuli.

And..that's all, I guess. What d'ya think? --Xiaphias 09:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great job! It is coherent and usable. It will be a great (new) starting point to expand the article as needed. I appreciate you putting in the time to make this a legitimate article. You may want to note Mission Memo has published the most recent stats for the ICOC family of congregations. It includes a nice graph. Kelcy (the editor) may be willing to let you use it here. Pspadaro 08:55, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

You did a wonderful job. It is a relief to have a good writer and research from an outside perspective re-do this article, with all of Tranny's horribly biased and bad writing taking over for so long. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Looking forward to seeing further contributions. -minan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.133.140 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This reads better than it has done, but it still needs further revision. The writer has a tendency to allow his/her own arguments come to the fore rather than cited facts. Arguments are for a different forum than wikipedia. In particular, he/she makes an unwarranted assumption that religious groups generally link salvation to a specific belief and practice, or indeed are all concerned about salvation (a Christian term that is not found on the wikipedia "religion" page). Christianity and Islam are the world religions traditionally obsessed with precise belief. Precise pratice is traditionally important in Judaism and in some Eastern religious movements. Even within these religions, though, there are many who are not so concerned about precise belief.

exchange the original version: vandalism
The problem with Xiaphias's version: vandalism. Xiaphias vandalized the original version, he deleted a lot of information and deleted a lot of caracter. This is not okay, because the original version was discussed from 2005 to 2007. Exchange the aricle without, discussion? I dont know of the kind rule in the wikipedia. --TransylvanianKarl 07:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right; there is no rule against it. It's commonly done with articles that are in need of major changes; someone makes those major changes to improve the article.  Xiaphias' version is so completely and obviously superior to the previous version that no one but a major ICoC partisan could argue otherwise.  It's that much better.  Any missing information can be added back in piecemeal.  Powers T 12:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this Xiaphias version is infinitely more readable and well-written. Tranny, your version was so incredibly biased and sorry to say, poorly put together, and one could argue that your version was also a vandalism of the prior version to that. It continues to be incredibly frustrating how incredibly unaware you are of even basic principles of objectivity, and writing. -minan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.133.140 (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The truth and the facts need to be told. Please watch this ABC News 20/20 investigative report on the ICOC: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv

ABC News 20/20 investigation
ABC News 20/20 investigated the ICOC and Kip Mckean and Al Baird for one of their broadcasts. Many former members and former leaders call the ICOC a cult and tell horror stories of cult abuse: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Before you Edit...
Before you make a fundamental alteration -- that is to say, before you add something controversial or delete something extant -- please post here first and get approval. Not from me, of course, but from any person who cares to give their opinion. Indeed, I'd say that mine would be of the least importance, given my inherit bias to preserve the condition of my witting. With regard to references -- I'm a stickler for them, as you may have noticed. Some have objected to my midsentence citations ("First he did this,[1] but later this.[2]"); I don't do this with imprudence. If I added citations after a comma or semicolon, it's because the sentence contains two or more separate statements, each requiring verification and each obtained from a different source. Though it looks prettier to move them all till after the period, this makes it substantially more difficult for a reader to access the specific source he's looking for (Wikipedia's a research tool, not a postcard). Also: if you see a fact or statement which you think looks dubious, ask me about it -- I'll show you my source. I used only internet-accessible material, so you should be able to confirm everything for yourself. --Xiaphias 09:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ABC News 20/20 investigated the ICOC and Kip Mckean and Al Baird for one of their broadcasts. Many former members and former leaders call the ICOC a cult and tell horror stories of cult abuse: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The redirect link is wrong
I found a page under "International Christian Church" that looks right. But when I search "International Christian Churches" it redirects to a different church called the "International Church of Christ" Did you know that this is a different church? See for your self by wiki-ing "kip mckean," city of angels international christian church, portland movement or even "international christian church" (with out the "es"). Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigernerve (talk • contribs) 15:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The "International Church of Christ" split from the from the Kip McKean movement in 2003. The "International Christian Churches" is a separate church entity from that of the "Portland International Church of Christ" who announced their separation August 2008 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.2.58 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The two movements are still essentially the same as the original Boston movement. Both Kip Mckean's new movement and the movement that broke away from Kip Mckean are cults. The same people run both of them and the same practices are in both organizations. The movement that broke away from Kip Mckean will condemn Kip Mckean as a cult leader; and while this is true; the new movement continues to be a cult that enslaves people and and leaves former members telling horror stories of cult abuse. No one leaves either of the two movements happy and satisfied. People leave either one of the cult movements because they are just that CULTS. Al Baird, Kip Mckean, and everyone from these two movements needs to stop trying to control others, stop trying to take innocent peoples' monies, and stop claiming that they are a movement of God. These cults are nothing more than businesses and schemes to get more money and power for the leaders. CULTS? hey, absolutely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Xiaphias! Your ICOC version was'not neutral!
Your ICOC version was'not neutral! Please read the Neurta point of view -article! -This is wikipedia principlas! Please use this principlas, if want contrib here! thank you --TransylvanianKarl 11:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you support that claim? --Xiaphias 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will to set out the all problems of your non neutral article version.--TransylvanianKarl 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The two movements are still essentially the same as the original Boston movement. Both Kip Mckean's new movement and the movement that broke away from Kip Mckean are cults. The same people run both of them and the same practices are in both organizations. The movement that broke away from Kip Mckean will condemn Kip Mckean as a cult leader; and while this is true; the new movement continues to be a cult that enslaves people and and leaves former members telling horror stories of cult abuse. No one leaves either of the two movements happy and satisfied. People leave either one of the cult movements because they are just that CULTS. Al Baird, Kip Mckean, and everyone from these two movements needs to stop trying to control others, stop trying to take innocent peoples' monies, and stop claiming that they are a movement of God. These cults are nothing more than businesses and schemes to get more money and power for the leaders. CULTS? hey, absolutely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

problems/1
right|350px|thumb|The hierarchal structure of the ICoC,(pre 2002) indicating who receives a salary and who doesn't.

Problems whit this image: Today in the ICOC are not "sector leaders", end "geographic sector leaders". That was only, when Kip leaded the the Los Angeles Church of Christ. Until 2002! --TransylvanianKarl 19:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

problems/2

Paid, and unpaid, are not neutral category, this is a hostile vievpont because, the leaders are the servant of members, and they are paid, because they work, and serving the church, the church members, and God. --TransylvanianKarl 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, I think I'm beginning to see the problem -- you have a personal interest in the matter. Methinks I'll have to request some moderation here.
 * In the mean time, I'll try to respond to your points, but I suspect it'll be a futile effort. My date for the addition of Geographic Sector Leaders was sourced; if you have a source which says otherwise, please post it.  The triangle was merely designed to illustrate the structure of the organization; there is no 'bias' in depicting who is paid and who isn't (I'm not sure why this offends you; I suspect all religious organizations are similarly-structured, with church leaders and their superiors receiving a paycheck).
 * Anyways, feel free to point out other perceived violations of POV...but as I've mentioned, I only summarized and reported what is said about the ICoC -- I didn't add my own thoughts or opinions, nor did I attempt to present the information in a manner which would convey them.
 * Cheers, --Xiaphias 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume more 'problems' are on the way? --Xiaphias 00:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I referrred earlier, but you deleted this informations: International Churches of Christ comprise autonomous, non-denominational (New York City Church of Christ 'About us') Christian congregations, an offshoot from the Mainline Churches of Christ. Central Auckland Church of Christ "About us", about the ICOC It is true, the ICOC earlier was a centralized stucture. But in 2002- the all congregations become autonomous. Whithout formally recognized headquarters, councils, or hierarchal church government. see: http://www.aucklandchurch.com/ ''
 * "  The Central Auckland Church of Christ is currently part of the world wide fellowship of the International Churches of Christ. Whilst there is no central leadership functioning anymore "

If you find references about "sector leaders", or "geographic sectors" -that is erlier than 2002! If you want this information put in thearticle it is okay, but it is inportant you shuld write that was in the past. And that is not actual in the church. --TransylvanianKarl 09:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow Karl are you still at it? You have been trying to sway this article in favor of the ICOC for at least a year now. Knock it off already - the joint is a cult and in LA they have sector leaders and they still preach the OTC razor7  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.255.94 (talk) 17:15, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I AGREE THAT THE ICOC AND ANYT MOVEMENTS TO COME OUT OF THE ICOC ARE CULTS. The two movements are still essentially the same as the original Boston movement. Both Kip Mckean's new movement and the movement that broke away from Kip Mckean are cults. The same people run both of them and the same practices are in both organizations. The movement that broke away from Kip Mckean will condemn Kip Mckean as a cult leader; and while this is true; the new movement continues to be a cult that enslaves people and and leaves former members telling horror stories of cult abuse. No one leaves either of the two movements happy and satisfied. People leave either one of the cult movements because they are just that CULTS. Al Baird, Kip Mckean, and everyone from these two movements needs to stop trying to control others, stop trying to take innocent peoples' monies, and stop claiming that they are a movement of God. These cults are nothing more than businesses and schemes to get more money and power for the leaders. CULTS? hey, absolutely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

 * Note: the stated RFC reason was originally "Is this new version of the article more or less biased/accurate/suitable than the version which it replaced?", but the bot cannot handle exclamation points and equal signs anymore. MessedRocker (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a request for comment tag to get some third-party insight. To Commenters: this is a tricky subject. The ICoC, as I've come to learn, is a popular and well-established religion...yet, many observers have, over the years, characterized it as a 'cult'. This is complicated by the fact that a number of churches within the ICoC have recently reformed their policies. I've tried to address this in my |new version, which replaced this version; TransylvanianKarl seems to feel that the new version is more biased than the old. However, it seems to me based on his thusfar-cited points of contention that he is, in fact, affiliated with the ICoC himself, and thus would hardly be in a position to view the issue disinterestedly. This may be untrue, but that's the impression I've gotten.

Anyways, I'd like to hear your opinion, whichever side you come down on. --Xiaphias 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your version is far, far, superior, to the point that I felt it necessary to revert back to it. It's that much better.  The prior state of the article was a mess, absurdly POV, and overflowing with unduly-weighted sources.  I commend your effort and hope more people notice this article to help keep POV edits out.  Powers T 17:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two versions of this article, both of which could be improved. However, only one has multiple reliable sources - Xiaphas' version. I support the taking of strong action to ensure Xiaphas' version so that readers see this, and it provides the base for improvement. (For the record, I reverted to Xiaphas', but my revert was reversed in less than an hour). Seektruthfromfacts 08:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, Xiaphias's version is far superior. These edit wars need to stop, things are out of control.  We'd have 3RR going on, but there are anon IP editors in the mix also.  I can't wait for an admin to come in here with the ban-hammer soon.  Nswinton\talk 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I Don't agree! The problem with Xiaphias's version: vandalism. Xiaphias vandalized the original version, he deleted a lot of information and deleted a lot of caracter. This is not okay, because the original version was discussed from 2005 to 2007. I think when we have two version, have to merge this two. Exchange the aricle without, discussion?  I dont know of the kind rule in the wikipedia.   --TransylvanianKarl 08:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I started to merge, this two article, but I'm not ready so far, please give mi a little time for this work. Thank you. --TransylvanianKarl 08:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * today I work a lot on merge this two version, I'm not ready so far. But it is very important the NPOV in the whole article, and the criticism section too. Therefore I copied only the neutral sections from the Xiaphas' version criticism section.  --TransylvanianKarl 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Users! The "Requests for comment" don't substitute the minute work and the discussion of sections one by one!!!! --TransylvanianKarl 08:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I AGREE THAT THE ICOC AND ANY MOVEMENTS TO COME OUT OF THE ICOC ARE CULTS. The two movements are still essentially the same as the original Boston movement. Both Kip Mckean's new movement and the movement that broke away from Kip Mckean are cults. The same people run both of them and the same practices are in both organizations. The movement that broke away from Kip Mckean will condemn Kip Mckean as a cult leader; and while this is true; the new movement continues to be a cult that enslaves people and and leaves former members telling horror stories of cult abuse. No one leaves either of the two movements happy and satisfied. People leave either one of the cult movements because they are just that CULTS. Al Baird, Kip Mckean, and everyone from these two movements needs to stop trying to control others, stop trying to take innocent peoples' monies, and stop claiming that they are a movement of God. These cults are nothing more than businesses and schemes to get more money and power for the leaders. CULTS? hey, absolutely.Qewr4231 (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

About the partial version

 * Why are you speak just 2- version ? |Your Version, and original version; Because I try to merge this 2 in 3rd -version but i dont ready so far. I think your version built mainly the critical links. You writed: "many observers have, over the years, characterized it as a 'cult' "  If you want be Neurtal please dont write in the definition some opinions of " observers," and some "ex-members" ! If some noname " observers," and some "ex-members" opinion about the church is a "cult" it is alone a little group opinions. (for example a smal group and website reveal.org by Catherine Hampton who is today an Eastern Orthodox Church member and Michelle Campbell (who is a Member of Abundant Life Christian Fellowship in Mtn. View, CA and pursuing a career in law) to contribute to former members'') If you want you write in the article this informations, about some people's opinion, it is okay in the criticism section, but not okay in the definition section. And it is important to name the group. --TransylvanianKarl 10:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The worst picture about Kip Mc Kean! Why?
(problems/3 ) Image:ICoC_McKean.png -Why put in the article this worst picture about Kip McKeant? Whilst on the internet there are a lot of good picture about Kip, for example: Kip Mc Kean. --TransylvanianKarl 10:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv Kip Mckean is a cult leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Heavy neutrality problem
(problems/4 )

Xiaphias writed:  "controversial Protestant sect which splintered from the mainline Churches of Christ"

My question is: You realy think that is neutral? Who are belive this sentence? Some Catholics are sure. But, thousands of members who are live in this churches are not think this. It is very evident this sentence is very partial! Please be neutral! --TransylvanianKarl 16:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What's not-neutral about it? The sect is controversial; it's Protestant; it splintered from the mainline.  To what do you object?  Powers T 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The mainline Church of Christ splintered from Presbyterian church, the Presbyterian church splintered from the Chatolic church. The Presbyterian church is not a sect? And the Mainline COC is not a sect just the ICOC? This is neutral? --TransylvanianKarl 10:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

LtPowers, You have to understand what is neutrality!
You asked: "What's not-neutral about it?" My answer: You sad: "the sect", -this is your partial openion. This is the problem. Please use the Neutral point of view -principles. It is have to use every user in the wikipedia. Because this is an enciklopedia. I understand it is hard, and not too easy thinking neutral, but this make a distinction with every other webpage, whither everybody write what he or she want. The Neutral point of view indispensable to enciklopedaiwritting. --TransylvanianKarl 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sect- [n.] (1) A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice. (2) A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination. (3) A faction united by common interests or beliefs.
 * Where exactly is the problem here? --130.85.194.177 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Give it up Karl everyone knows that the ICOC, Kip Mckean, Al Baird, and anyone connected to the Boston movement is a cult. Even the new cults that broke off from the ICOC are cults. Karl you are trying to sway people to believe that the ICOC is something they should be a part of. Karl you are not neutral on the church. My guess is you are a member or a webmaster for the ICOC's websites. Inside Edition did an investigation of the ICOC as a cult. So did Fox news. And I have the link to the ABC News 20/20 investigation on the cult. Give it a rest Karl; Kip Mckean, Al Baird, and anyone else involved with the ICOC are bad news. I should know because I used to be a leader in the ICOC.Qewr4231 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

the ICOC and the Manline COC relationship is Changing (ICOC are open to co-operation to the Mainline COC)
For example:
 * VBS Unity ICOC / CoC The Omaha Church of Christ (ICOC) and the Southwest Church of Christ (non-instrumental CoC) have teamed up for their Vacation Bible School (VBS).--TransylvanianKarl 10:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

what is not controversial today in this world?
Everithing is controversial by somebody, by some groups, by a member of a subculture. We have to consequent. If ICOC is controversial by a members of a subculture. The catholic church is not too controversial by a members of another subcultures? Yes it is controversial. But if yes, it is have to write to the catholic church's article. If not? The ICOC neither. --TransylvanianKarl 11:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It has to do with how widely something is considered controversial relative to those who consider it uncontroversial. Powers T 15:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The ICOC are changed
The ICOC changed after 2002 - when Kip Mckean had to resigned. And the ICOC churches are free autonomus churches, the teaching, and the practice is changed. -cut this section- TransylvanianKarl 10:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Karl, I appreciate your efforts to improve this article, and I realize English is not your primary language, but your comments are nearly impenetrable. I can't respond to your comments because I don't understand them.  Powers T 15:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay Karl. . . they've brainwashed you and/or you are an employee of one of these cults. Seriously man, the two movements that the ICOC has been fractured into are cults - The ICOC leaders at the top of the ICOC got tired of sharing the money that they take in so they fought for control of the ICOC and the cult has been fractured into smaller cults.Qewr4231 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The ICOC changed!You can see what happend the last five years

 * Kip McKean has resigned in 2002!
 * Kip McKean Resignation Letter Wednesday, November 06, 2002
 * Los Angeles Church of Christ Apology Letter by LA Elders and Staff February 28, 2003
 * Three Major Factions In the ICOC:
 * 1) "There is a reformist group that has taken heed to Henry Kriete and others, who are actively trying to make things better and change. They recognize a number of problems."
 * 2)  "There is a moderate group that, while they recognize that reform is necessary"
 * 3) "There is a conservative or traditionalist group"
 * Boston Elders Address the Actions of Kip McKean August 2005
 * Phoenix  Letter to the Church Oppose McKean1 September 2005
 * Phoenix  Letter to the Church Oppose McKean 2 September 2005
 * The ICOC Churches Oppose McKeanSeptember, 2005
 * St Louis Church of Christ Oppose McKean 2005
 * San Diego Church Oppose McKeanSeptember 2005
 * South Florida Church Oppose McKeanin 2005
 * Greather Baltimour Church of Christ Oppose McKeanin 2005
 * ICOC Divides: Core Separating from McKean FactionNovember 3, 2005
 * statement to Kip McKean from 84 ICC church leadersNovember 2, 2005
 * Letter to the Church, in the Chicago Curch of Christ2006 March
 * Emailed to members of Bay Area Church 2006 -october
 * ICOC Plan for United Cooperation. -Whithout Kim McKean- - 2006 -
 * The Syracuse Regional Church of Christ Oppose McKeanin Dec 28, 2006
 * Sold Out: Kip McKean Leads New Church, MovementJuly 5, 2007
 * Portland Movemant Directory Portland Affiliated Churches2007
 * "As a side note: Within the ICOC, there is a current push to have churches sign up for the "Unity Plan".  This plan is in no way connected to the churches deciding to follow Kip's teachings." -by Kip McKean.com, criticism site

--TransylvanianKarl 19:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The two movements are still essentially the same as the original Boston movement. Both Kip Mckean's new movement and the movement that broke away from Kip Mckean are cults. The same people run both of them and the same practices are in both organizations. The movement that broke away from Kip Mckean will condemn Kip Mckean as a cult leader; and while this is true; the new movement continues to be a cult that enslaves people and and leaves former members telling horror stories of cult abuse. No one leaves either of the two movements happy and satisfied. People leave either one of the cult movements because they are just that CULTS. Al Baird, Kip Mckean, and everyone from these two movements needs to stop trying to control others, stop trying to take innocent peoples' monies, and stop claiming that they are a movement of God. These cults are nothing more than businesses and schemes to get more money and power for the leaders. CULTS? hey, absolutely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Constant reversions
IP users keep revering this page back to the clearly inferior version prior to Xiaphias' edits, with NO explanation and NO attempt at discussion here. It's one thing to do so while making cogent arguments and actually collaborating with other editors; it's another thing entirely to do so without comment. Until someone attempts to justify reverting back to the pre-Xiaphias version, I see no reason to allow it to stand. Powers T 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, since no one has bothered to come here to discuss this issue, I'll just assume any further reversions to the pre-Xiaphias version to be vandalism. Someone who was not a vandal would actual come here and discuss the issue.  Powers T 23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The two movements are still essentially the same as the original Boston movement. Both Kip Mckean's new movement and the movement that broke away from Kip Mckean are cults. The same people run both of them and the same practices are in both organizations. The movement that broke away from Kip Mckean will condemn Kip Mckean as a cult leader; and while this is true; the new movement continues to be a cult that enslaves people and and leaves former members telling horror stories of cult abuse. No one leaves either of the two movements happy and satisfied. People leave either one of the cult movements because they are just that CULTS. Al Baird, Kip Mckean, and everyone from these two movements needs to stop trying to control others, stop trying to take innocent peoples' monies, and stop claiming that they are a movement of God. These cults are nothing more than businesses and schemes to get more money and power for the leaders. CULTS? hey, absolutely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Classification - big mistake
The ICOC Is not Protestant! It is mistake. The ICOC like the COC is Restorationist see also: Restoration Movement. --TransylvanianKarl 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Karl, use internal links to link to pages on Wikipedia, please. And also, if the ICoC is indeed Restorationist, then I'm sure you can find a reliable source that says so.  Then, you can make the change to the article.  That's how things work here.  Powers T 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding references, Karl. Unfortunately, you're adding them to the inferior version prior to Xiaphias' changes, which means they get lost when I revert back to Xiaphias' version.  Can you add them to the better version of the article instead?  Powers T 11:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmvQewr4231 (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

LtPowers's vandalism again
LtPowers!

You deleted a lot of text (11,401 -caracter) by the text. I don't understand why? Please don't vandalise the article and please be neutral! Please don't use too much criticism pages to the article. Because, the Wikipedia is en enciklopedia not a website which employ demagog Anti-cult movement tactics. --TransylvanianKarl 06:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You can read more about Vandalism, if you want.--TransylvanianKarl 06:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay Karl, you are asking people to be neutral; however; your version of the ICOC is not neutral at all. In fact your version of the ICOC exhibits one of the most pro-ICOC articles ever written. You, Karl, have not written a neutral article.Qewr4231 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is an idiot in an encyklopedia? Minan's personal attack again /2
Minan! No personal attacks please!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.99.103 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Alternate meanings
Why did you deleted this?

''

2. Why did you deleted references from the infobox?
area = global (159 nations) icocinfo.org

congregations = 543 (2005) icocinfo.org - Congregations

members = 95,751 (2005) icocinfo.org - Members

Why did you detelted the Restoration Movement reference? Central Auckland Church of Christ "About us", about the ICOC

3. Why did you deleted this referred sections and Why did you deleted this references from the article?
International Churches of Christ comprise autonomous, non-denominational, New York City Church of Christ 'About us' religiously conservative, culturally innovative, socially engaging, and racially integrated Ref: (Restructuring religion and the new Los Angeles mosaic: An ethnography of the Los Angeles Church of Christ   - by Stanczak, Gregory Charles, Ph.D., University of Southern California, 2001,)  christian congregations, an offshoot from the Mainline Churches of Christ. Central Auckland Church of Christ "About us", about the ICOC - It has also been called the "Boston Movement". Central Auckland Church of Christ "Boston Movement" - (Boston Church of Christ) Boston Church of Christ "About Us" - These churches comprise about 96.000 members in over 560The most recent 2005 statistics for church membership individual congregations worldwide. All individual ICOC congregations worldwide

Why did you deleted this referred sections about Origins?

4.Why did you deleted this referred sections about the roots of ICOC?
The International Churches of Christ are restorationist churches. oabs.org - The roots of the International Churches of Christ lie in the Restoration MovementOrigins and History of the ICC Movement: The ICC movement grew from the “mainline” Churches of Christ (the largest branch from the 19th Century Restoration Movement) of the early 19th century, which promoted a return to the practices of the 1st century Christian churches as described in the New Testament. - The American Restoration Movement of the 18th and 19th centuries was an emergence of seekers who perpetuated ideals that have existed throughout church history regarding inspired truth over ecclesiastic tradition or dogma. Restoration Movement This movement was in some ways similar to the Reformation and was sometimes referred to as "the new Reformation." The Restoration Movement promoted a return to the purposes of the first century churches as described in the New Testament and is considered by some historians to be part of the Second Great Awakening.

5.Why did you deleted this minimal informations about relationship between the ICOC and the Mainline Church of Christ?
The approximate number of a cappella Churches of Christ comprise about 2,000,000 members in over 40,000 individual congregations worldwide. Churches of Christ Zip Statistical Summary This website needs an objective investigative reporter. Church members have a doctored history of the movement and cannot be accurate. Ex-members are bitter and will not be completely fair handling the truth. The ICOC's history is very protected because its past is full of shady rumors.

Here is an objective investigative report done by ABC News 20/20: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmvQewr4231 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

6.Why did you deleted this referred sections about HOPE Worldwide?
HOPE worldwide is an international charity that changes lives by harnessing the compassion and commitment of dedicated staff and volunteers to deliver sustainable, high-impact, community-based services to the poor and needy. HOPE Worldwide The International Churches of Christ founded HOPE worldwide in response to the Scriptures that call us to have the heart of Jesus by serving the poor and needy throughout the world. God has truly blessed our efforts and today the organization operates on every inhabited continent and reaches more than 1,000,000 people each year.

Some ex-members have doubts about the way the money collected for the charity was handled.

Indeed!!! Please see this article:

Hope Worldwide Buys Wayne Office Building Real Estate Journal/August 5, 1999 By Kathleen Miller http://www.rickross.com/reference/icc/ICC263.html

Pennsylvania -- Hope Worldwide has purchased a 16,800-square-foot Class A space office building at 353 West Lancaster Ave in Wayne.

The three-story, elevator-served office building was sold for $2.7 million by the owner, 353 Associates. The building was offered to the market at $2.95 million.

The building's second and third floors feature perimeter executive offices premium wall coverings, upgraded carpet and recessed grid acoustic ceilings. The first level has sheltered parking for about seven vehicles, though the building site in total has paved parking for up to 73 cars.

Other building features include a tenant controlled HVAC system, upgraded common areas and tile restrooms, in addition to a code access security system for after hours entry.

Gary M. Holloway Jr., a broker from the King of Prussia office of GMH Realty Inc., represented the seller.

You should also see this article:

"Hope for Kids" "INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF CHRIST (ICC) runs HOPE Worldwide, Inc. HOPE for Kids is part of HOPE Worldwide" September 1999 By a resident of Charlotte, NC http://www.rickross.com/reference/icc/ICC227.html

I visited a church back in 1992. At the time I welcomed the new friends that were my age and not ashamed to share openly about God. They were in their 20s. As a matter of fact, I do not remember anyone over his or her early 30s. I already had a church I was devoted to, but I enjoyed the many activities this church offered. I just want the company. They wanted me as a member and nothing else.

It did not take me long to see they had hidden motives. I was lucky. My sister was also attending the church at the same time. She was soon going to graduate with a degree in Religion. Her main objective for attending the church was for research for her schoolwork. Needless to say...the church was very ODD and we left. My sister renounced them and was "black-balled" by the church. The members were told to NOT have ANY contact with her.

It has been about 7 years since then. I had almost forgotten about the church. I actually thought the church would not make it and fizzle. Then I started volunteering for a local organization, HOPE for Kids. I began spending more time around the other volunteers in HOPE for Kids and soon felt like I was a "loner". Everyone seemed to know each other, but I only knew one person, a co-worker who invited me to help with HOPE for Kids. I soon began to feel strange around these people. But I did not feel uncomfortable--at least not yet.

HOPE for Kids had a rally downtown one weekend and I attended along with other co-workers from my office. Only one co-worker was originally involved with HOPE before I volunteered, he just invited everyone in our office out to this rally. At the rally I started putting the pieces together. I saw people I had met at the CHARLOTTE CHURCH OF CHRIST back in 1992. I soon found out that the church is now simply called the CHARLOTTE CHURCH. And this is where the fun begins!

The CHARLOTTE CHURCH is part of the INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF CHRIST (ICC). ICC started and runs HOPE Worldwide, inc. HOPE for Kids, which is part of HOPE Worldwide.

The CHARLOTTE CHURCH met in a hotel conference room back in 1992, they now meet at Spirit Square.

The one person at my office who apparently was involved with this church, has since brought in 3 other church members and helped them get hired at my office. That's cool. I can deal with that. I CANNOT deal with the fact that now my co-workers who are not part of the CHARLOTTE CHRUCH are being heavily recruited into joining? I have seen 2 co-workers become members already. I would usually admire the fact that my co-workers are becoming more involved in a church, but NOT THIS church.

There are many churches and religions in the world. There are also cults. Expressing your religious beliefs is a constitutional right. Controlling someone else's beliefs is NOT.

Young adults are being preyed upon. Usually colleges are targeted for recruitment, but anyone who is out of high school and still single is a likely target for recruitment.

My reason for concern is that once this church recruits you, they try to pull you away from family and friends.

The very fact that they have hidden motives is cause for alarm for me. When you are first recruited, if you are not invited to church, you are invited to a social event. Yet they do not tell you that at the volley ball game--you will be the only non-church member. They then hit you up for your phone number and so begin the weekly calls to check in with you. They become your very best friends. Honestly. They will have you believing that they would do anything for you, but only if you agree to go places with them--like church. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to this, members were pressured to volunteer and raise additional funds for HOPE Worldwide. Orlando Apology Letter -- Spring 2003 Qewr4231 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

7.Why did you deleted this referred sections about Congregational Leadership?
Church government is congregational, rather than denominational. Elders in some cases, or where there are not elders, Evangelists, with the assistance of leading men of the congregation, are seen as the spiritual leaders of the congregation.

I believe that it is fair to say that some churches still have a hierarchical government. Where the ranks are 1. Sector Leader 2. Bible Talk leaders Discipling Groups 3. Small Discipling Groups 4. Individual Discipling Partners. I wish i could draw a pyramid.

8.Why did you deleted this referred sections about Evangelist, Preacher?
The Evangelist, Preacher, or Minister prepares and delivers sermons, teaches Bible classes, performs weddings, preaches or evangelizes the gospel, and (sometimes) performs baptisms however, baptizing is not restricted to ministers. This position is typically paid to allow the evangelist to disentangle himself from secular employment and focus on studies. For most congregations the evangelist leads the local church in much the same way as most fundamentalist church 'pastors'. He is often assisted by groups of men that have been elected by the local congregation or appointed by the Evangelist. In many cases, church elders from what were formally regarded as 'pillar churches' act as advisors to the smaller congregations.

As ‘lead evangelists’, we have routinely forced our administrators to ‘get in line’ or be ‘loyal to us’ – as plans and programs and pet projects are railroaded through to the dismay of all. Henry Kriete Letter -- Spring 2003

Administrators have admitted to deceit in the name of compliance, and to ‘smoke and mirrors’ with the finances. Some of the more intimidated, have been involved in wholesale financial mismanagement…. Henry Kriete Letter -- Spring 2003

Qewr4231 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

9.Why did you deleted this referred sections about Chemical Recovery Ministry?
The goal of the Chemical Recovery ministry is to help the addict have a hope and a future. Chemical Recovery Ministry

10.Why did you deleted this referred sections about Congregational autonomy?
Church leadership is congregational rather than denominational. The International Churches of Christ have no formally recognized headquarters, councils, or hierarchal church government. Rather, the independent congregations are a network with each congregation participating at its own discretion in various means of service and fellowship with other congregations. Central Auckland Church of Christ " Whilst there is no central leadership functioning anymore" " SCOC is an autonomous congregation, with historical links to the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). "

11.Why did you deleted this referred sections about Notable Members?

 * Andie MacDowell- actress, movie star (former member)
 * Douglas Jacoby - Evangelist
 * Geoffrey Owens - Actor, cast member of the Cosby Show
 * Kip McKean - Evangelist, former ICOC leader Currently he is the minister of the City of Angels International Christian Church and the "International Christian Churches" organization. It has also been called the Portland International Church of Christ, or Portland Movement
 * Mack Strong - football player for the NFL's Seattle Seahawks.
 * Marcus Gayle- football (soccer) player for Aldershot Town
 * Speech (rapper) - (Arrested Development)
 * Josef Ian Scott - football player for the NFL's  Philadelphia Eagles. (Earlier for the Chicago Bears 2003-2006)
 * Vera Schmidt- a singer-songwriter who rose to popularity after placing fifth in the Hungarian version of "Pop Idol" Megasztár.

Andie MacDowell was never in the ICOC.

Geoffrey Owens was in the mainline Churches of Christ not the ICOC.

12.Why did you deleted this sections about the Indianapolis Church of Christ
- 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." Steve Cannon currently oversees the Indianapolis International Church of Christ.

13.Why did you deleted this referred sections about Changes in the International Churches of Christ
In early 2001, some of the World Sector Leaders (Regional Evangelists directing geographic areas of churches) began to question the effectiveness of the present leadership structure as well as the qualifications of Kip and Elena McKean to continue in their global leadership role. By September, the issue had reached a head in which the majority of World Sector Leaders agreed that significant changes were necessary. In November 2001, the McKeans announced that they were stepping down from leading the Los Angeles Church of Christ in order to take a sabbatical for an unspecified amount of time in order to focus on "marriage and family issues." 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. At this time, the International Churches of Christ administration, under the leadership of Andy Fleming (former missionary to Scandinavia and the Soviet Union), began to formulate a plan for a massive reduction in the overhead of the worldwide organization. The goal of this administrative plan was to refocus the resources of the local congregations on building up their own ministries as well as guaranteeing continued 'goodwill' in future missions contributions. By the end of 2002, the overhead had been reduced by 67%, and Fleming resigned as the Chairman of the Board.

14.Why did you deleted this referred sections aboutKip McKean's resignation
In November 2002, the McKeans announced their resignations from their roles as World Mission Evangelist, Women's Ministry Leader and Leader of the World Sector Leaders. Kip McKean Resignation Letter Wednesday, November 06, 2002 The World Sector Leaders also announced the disintegration of their leadership group with the suggestion that a new representative leadership group including evangelists, elders and teachers, be formed with an initial meeting in May 2003. In February 2003, Henry Kriete, a leader in the London Church of Christ, wrote an open letter titled "Honest to God: Revolution Through Repentance and Freedom" to the leadership of the International Churches of Christ, criticizing many of its practices. Kriete called for the leaders of the International Churches of Christ to renounce, abandon and repent of its systemic abusive practices, financial capriciousness, arrogance, and abberational teachings. While perhaps originally intended for leaders' eyes only, many rank-and-file members were able to obtain and read copies of the letter over the internet. It remains massively distributed to this day and is posted on a number of websites. The majority of churches throughout the International Churches of Christ eventually accepted the letter. While reactions to the letter caused large rifts, many hurt feelings and scarred faith, many church members, though not all, believe that its writing and widespread dissemination was an act of God intended to compel the church to redress many of its abuses and un-biblical practices. As a result of the letter, many churches in the International Churches of Christ no longer require the strictly assigned discipling relationships that once characterized the International Churches of Christ. Overall, the removal of the hierarchical structure that was part and parcel of the assigned discipling relationships has allowed the leadership and the general membership to become far closer than in the past and there is far less intimidation of "ordinary" members. For example, there is now open opposition to leadership when they are not perceived to be doing what is right. However, it should be noted not all leaders accept the challenges. 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,life-saving.

This is about kip's resignation.-bangel92

15.Why did you deleted the interwiki links?

 * de:Internationale Gemeinden Christi
 * et:Rahvusvahelised Kristuse Kogudused
 * fr:Église internationale du Christ
 * hu:Krisztus Nemzetközi Egyházai
 * no:International Churches of Christ

--TransylvanianKarl 06:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted sections without discussion: Vandalism again
User Seektruthfromfacts! Why did you deleted this section about Several ICOC sites, and why did you deleted the interwiki links?


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

--TransylvanianKarl 11:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

reliable sources!!!
User Seektruthfromfacts! Why did you deleted this text? I don't understand why don't reliable source the University of Southern California?

Why don't Reliable sources this?: "Restructuring religion and the new Los Angeles mosaic: An ethnography of the Los Angeles Church of Christ by Stanczak, Gregory Charles, Ph.D., University of Southern California, 2001"

Why did you deleted this referred text? "religiously conservative, culturally innovative, socially engaging, and racially integrated [7] christian congregations,"

--TransylvanianKarl 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote above: "There are two versions of this article, both of which could be improved. However, only one has multiple reliable sources - Xiaphas' version." So there are two good reasons for deleting that text:
 * Xiaphas' version has multiple reliable sources. TransylvanianKarl's version has one or two reliable sources. Many self-published sources (=articles written by ICoC) are unnecessary when sources by other people are available. So if this text is included, it should be added to Xiaphas' version.
 * Our reliable sources policy says: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Although Dr Stanczak has published work, the source you use is a PhD thesis, and therefore not published. Moreover, I do not even think that the citation refers to the thesis, but to an abstract which may have been written before the research took place ("The dissertation proposed here" may be academic caution, or it may be a grant application).
 * I hope that this answers your question. I am sorry if some of the English is difficult; I know it is difficult to write in a foreign language! Seektruthfromfacts 13:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use non-existent inside link in the article
User Nswinton! Please don't put back this deleted inside link: -This article we discussed, and deleted. --TransylvanianKarl 12:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Section headings
I've made a few changes to the section headings of the article as per WP:MOSHEAD. General thought process: the headings should be brief nouns and verbs, with clarification and content in the body. Also, references should be in the body of the section. The TOC should be a collection of very brief 1-(maybe 5) word summaries of the sections, not phrases or sentences, and lacking clarifications like "(mainly having to do with so and so...)". Hope that makes sense. Nice work so far on the merge. Nswinton\talk 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Information box
I have a couple of questions about the information box; the "orientation" is listed as evangelical, and the "polity" is listed as episcopal.

From some reading I've done, I understand there are at least two versions of "evangelical." The ICOC would certainly fit the description in its larger context; but evangelicalism it its narrower context, while holding to most of the same beliefs, specifically rejects regenerative baptism -- that is, it believes conversion and salvation happen before baptism, not during. It is at this point that ICOC, as well as Churches of Christ and Christian Churches depart from that section of evangelicalism. The ICOC holds to the belief that the lost are saved through faith at baptism, not before. Is that something that could or should be clarified at some point? Or is it clear and I'm just missing something?

Secondly, I question the designation of episcopal as the polity. I don't know what the other options are, but episcopal hardly seems accurate.

129.59.8.10 09:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made the userbox citations more explicit; hopefully this clears things up. --Xiaphias (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
Karl, I've created a Request for Mediation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/International_Chruches_of_Christ Please indicate that you consent to mediation by writting "Agree" and leaving your signature in the section where I've done the same. Thanks, --Xiaphias 20:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe Karl left. I don't know if he is a cult member, and it's unfortunate that his English is so poor, but my main concern is the way that he's totally hijacked the article and talk page.  He's not worked for consensus and he's a 3-vert-a-holic.  I'm glad you submitted a request for moderation, Xiaphias.  Nswinton\talk 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Minan's personal attack again /3
Minan! No personal attacks please!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.99.103 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Revisions
I've begun to re-enact some revisions to increase the readability, verifiability, accuracy, and objectivity of this article. The last time I tried to do some rewrites, I hit a roadblock when a determined and POV-pushing editor objected to the changes; I've waited a while, so hopefully that's died off. If anyone who isn't an ICoC-lover or an ICoC-hater has some new objection, let me know. If you belong to one of these groups, please use your discretion with reverts and edits; try to discuss edits before hand, or at least rationalize them afterwards, and cite objective and reliable sources as much as possible (citing ICOC-loving or -hating groups isn't particularly helpful). Cheers! --Xiaphias (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Powers T 02:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My pleasure ; )
 * So, as I reworked the 'Institutional Description' section today I had to remove this sentence:
 * "In light of the 2003 events, many churches have reevaluated what the Bible says about discipling and this is the reason that it is a choice of the individual as to who their disciplship partner is."
 * Anyone have some source for post-'03 changes? I didn't find any, but with a reference this info would certainly merit inclusion. --Xiaphias (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes since 2003
Some editor added a lot of material about how the church now is different from its pre-2003 status. From what I've read, this seems to be the case, but the degree to which this has occurred remains unclear (I've read of "cult" allegations from as recently as this past summer). So, does anyone know of any references I could check out regarding this? I'd like to be able to write of its current state with less vagueness. --Xiaphias (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cut out. NPOV!
This is NPOV! "is a controversial Protestant sect which splintered from the mainline Churches of Christ" This is a non neutral sentence! The neutrality is not an option in the wikipedia! --TransylvanianKarl (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC) NPOV! Xiaphias! please read the Neutral point of view-article, and please be neutral!--TransylvanianKarl (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not going to let you manipulate this article any more, Karl. "Neutral" doesn't mean being friendly or pleasant, it doesn't mean being uncontroversial, it doesn't mean giving equal weight to both sides of a debate.  It means being objective.  That's what I've tried to do.  Now, if you have specific concerns, outline them and they can be addressed point by point.  For example: if you're not happy with the introductory sentence that you've cited, why not author a superior one and post it here so that it may be discussed?  At a minimum, couldn't you highlight why you disagree with the sentence?
 * As my material is thoroughly referenced with reliable, scholarly sources, and as my "request for comment" some time back yielded unanimous consensus for the superiority of the newer version, I'm going to revert your last batch of changes. Once.  If you make wholesale, non-consensus-based, and clearly-biased edits again thereafter, then I will do everything in my power to see that your account is permanently banned from editing this article.  This shouldn't be a hard case to sell, based on your edit history, but I want to warn you first; consider your next move carefully.
 * I don't hate the ICoC. I've never been to one of its meetings, never seen one of its churches, never met one of its members.  I'm not your enemy, nor the ICoC's; my only goal is to see that this article remains objective.  In this case, objectivity requires acknowledging the past controversies. But it also means acknowledging the recent changes, which is an area where your contributions could prove invaluable.  You don't have to fight me, Karl; work with me, show me why you believe the way you do.  I'm a scientist: give me some facts, some references, something I can consult and verify.
 * What do you say? --Xiaphias (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Problems again
etc......etc......etc...... --TransylvanianKarl (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "is a controversial "   ...in somebody's opinion... ...in some group's or other religious group's opinion...
 * "splintered from the mainline Churches of Christ"  ...in somebody's opinion... ...in some group's or other religious group's opinion...
 * " its aggressive recruitment tactics"     ...in somebody's opinion... ...in some group's or other religious group's opinion...
 * "Founder Kip McKean "  ...in somebody's opinion... ...in some group's or other religious group's opinion...
 * "Origin 1979 June 1 "   ...in somebody's opinion... ...in some group's or other religious group's opinion...


 * Thanks for taking the time to actually spell out some of your concerns. However, I'm afraid you're going to have to provide a bit more explanation, because to me these things do not appear to be non-NPOV problems. All of these things that you mention as "somebody's opinion" are actually quite objective (with the possible exception of the wording of "aggressive recruitment tactics", which although one of the defining characteristics of the early ICOC, can probably be worded a bit more neutrally, such as a "focus on evangelism" or something like that).  I think you'll have a hard time arguing that the ICOC didn't splinter from the mainline Churches of Christ, or that Kip McKean wasn't the first central authority and principal spiritual leader, and therefore founder of the ICOC.  Or that the ICOC doesn't trace it's own origin to June 1, 1979.  Deli nk (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As Deli nk noted, four of those five items are not matters of opinion at all, but rather objective facts. Those facts may be true or false, but, like all facts, are one or the other.  If you have strong, reliable evidence that those items are not true, provide it.  If you cannot provide such evidence, then you have no legitimate grounds for objection.  Powers T 20:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edit
Under Practices -- Sunday Worship I notice it said "Sunday Prayers...". I changed it to read "Sunday Worship". Sorry but this is the first time I have done something like this and didn't notice the "explain what you are doing" box till I had already hit the submit button. 00:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC) James A. Robbins Network Engineer The Ohio State University 22 Jan. 2008

No controversy?
It's a bit ridiculous that there's no mention of controversy in this article. Why not? for example gives lots and lots of citations of controversy. (Rick Ross himself may have his own POV on the issue, but he cites real independent news sources.) One of the most notable things about the ICoC is its controversy and the allegations that it's a cult (that's the only reason why I've heard of them). Of course we won't be POV about it, but it's silly not to mention it at all. Staecker (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I agree. Now if only someone will edit it... --24.192.136.238 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Load up the horses sources, boys. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sally Anne's vandalism ( Please don't cut the longer version )
The original, longer version is (54,806 bytes) And the Sally Anne's version is only 47,823 bytes. This is wandalism, bacause, the original version was longer!!!!- You deleted a lot of information and deleted a lot of caracter without discussing. This is not okay, because the original version was discussed from 2005 to 2008 februar Here you can read more about Vandalism. Please don't delet a lot of sections without discussing !!!!

--TransylvanianKarl (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was reverting to a version that had consensus, rather than to a version that is favored only by you. Sally Anne (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I've submitted a request for arbitration here, recommending that TransylvanianKarl be banned from editing this article. If you care to voice your thoughts on the issue, feel free to create a new "Statement by..." section and explain your opinion. --Xiaphias (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My english is poor. It is too difficult for me. In the hungarian wikipedia aren't translated the "Requests for arbitration" -article. And I think the neutrality is very important in an enciklopedy. My first problem was with Xiaphias's version the neutrality. For example this is POV!: "is a controversial Protestant sect which splintered from the mainline Churches of Christ" This is a non neutral sentence! According to my conviction the neutrality is not an option in the wikipedia! My second problem was with Xiaphias's version: vandalism. Xiaphias vandalized the original version, he deleted a lot of information without, discussion. This is not okay, because the original version was discussed from 2005 to 2007. I think when we have two version, have to merge this two.  Exchange the aricle without, discussion?  I dont know of the kind rule in the wikipedia. According to my conviction "Requests for comment" don't substitute the minute work and the discussion of sections one by one!!!! Today and yesterday I worked a lot on merge this two version, I think I made a balanced article now. But it is very important the NPOV in the whole article, and the criticism section too.!!! --TransylvanianKarl (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

i believe that someone impartial to the ICOC argument should be in charge of editing. The ICOC is as controversial as SCIENTOLOGY. Just as Scientologists have a lot of beneficial beliefs, so does the ICOC. And they both have a dark side. We need someone neutral. I am an ex member with family still as members, so i try to be sensitive. but i know i cant be fully neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boricuangel92 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is the founder of the ICOC?
Kip McKean is the founder of ICOC? Why? The ICOC isn't branched from the Mainline Churches of Christ? McKean just was one influential leader, not "the founder". --TransylvanianKarl (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, remove the "founder" field from the infobox. To say that Jesus is the founder is blatant POV, since this assumes the accuracy of the ICoC's claim that they are the "original church". Staecker (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * McKean's the founder because he's the one that did the 'branching'. It's the same with Martin Luther, who founded Lutheranism by separating from Catholicism.--Xiaphias (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

<<1986--Charles Lucas (nicknamed "Chuck"), 46 year-old leader of the Crossroads Movement (a series of campus ministries within the mainline Churches of Christ), is terminated from his position as evangelist, due to vaguely labeled "recurring sins". In a personal conversation with Mr. X, Lucas refers to his being fired as a "sabattical". After his termination, Lucas continues to be financially supported by Boston Movment/ICC leadership. By 1987, Kip McKean assumes Lucas' mantle of leadership, and is able to consolidate all Crossroads-connected ministries into his burgeoning "Boston Movement".>> This is from the REVEAL website. by Ryan Britt. But The Chuck Lucas issue was also told to me by a member of the church, back in the 90's. I think Chuck is important because he was the one with the discipling movement idea, and Kip just imitated everything yet he is credited for it.- Boricuangel92

I believe TransylvanianKarl to be a member of the International Churches of Christ. All of TransylvanianKarl's posts are pro ICOC and not neutral. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WHAT CERTIFIES 'FOUNDING'?
''"The most original of authors are not so because they advance what is new, but because they know how to say something as if it had never been said before." -Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe''

This quote I think lands the title of "Founder" clearly in McKean's lap. Having an idea is no guarantee of anything. There are plenty of people who had an idea, only to see it 'perverted' or 'diluted' by 'the man'. Credit rarely goes to the idea man - it most often goes to he who acts. Remember- fortune favors the bold.

To credit Chuck Lucas as the originator of the 'discipling' concept is generous at best. A simple Amazon search on Discipleship brings up a number of books published in 1980 and '82 by Chuck Swindoll and others who are clearly not themselves the originators of this movement and who do not claim to be. Certainly Lucas was influential, and had some unique views as to the practical application of the concept - but his final contribution was, as is McKean's - an amalgamation of what came before. In the end, he was a guy with an idea, whose idea was picked up and assimilated by someone else. Alone, Lucas-style discipling may or may not have revolutionized Christianity.

This discussion is to determine who can be credited (or blamed, depending on your point of view) for fanning a spark into a flame. Remove all bias and look at the various versions of the history, and one thing is clear - One man gathered a number of ideas or 'convictions' that were floating around at the time, he codified them, vocalized them, and ultimately, drove them into the hearts and minds of quite a large number of people. Sure, there were other people there too who had unique skills and motivations who were critical. But it was the right time, the right place, the right people - they just needed a catalyst. And McKean as far as I can see was the catalyst and clear 'founder' of the movement that became the ICOC.--67.52.74.130 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)scooterjonz

Small edit regarding Elitist Behavior
I added the information about single adult members being told to not date non-members. This was standard policy within the church for a long time. Crab Diva (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Master Plan of Evangelism
Folks:

I don't know who's who in the forum on this subject, and I am sure there are some strong opinions being expressed. This is what I DO know: There is no mention here of the book The Master Plan of Evangelism. This is the book on which Chuck Lucas based his early tactics. (A few years later, Lucas saw what he had wrought and began renouncing it. Leaders of the church at that point forced him out, telling members he had either 'gone off to evangelize on his own' and later changed the story to 'he fell away'.) Therefore I know that my knowledge of this group's history goes back deeper and further than anyone else here. Not boasting - just offering to help.

I was involved pretty early on, before this group really exploded, and have a filing cabinet full of materials and notes. If someone (or several someones) are actively involved in trying to put together a history of this group, I am pretty sure I can be of some service.

I may be contacted at mistersnitch [at] hotmail [dot] com. We can go from there. In exchange, I'd like to hear something about your own involvement in this group, and what you saw. Since I know the pattern, I know what to expect, but you may surprise me.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.144.72 (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia is not a weblink collection!
[Dear User 86.150.130.184!] Please don't collect a lot of links from the ICOC criticism, or from the ICOC. Because the wikipedia is not a weblink collection!
 * You can read more here: What Wikipedia is not

--Allarcoshos (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Allarcoshos: You're right. Let's delete the external links to the International Churches of Christ to be fair. Otherwise it's a one-sided story. --revealdotorg

For the wikipedia page on the International Churches Of Christ to be neutral the links to the ICOC and all links to ICOC websites should be deleted as none of the ICOC websites are neutral. The ICOC uses their websites as evanglizing tools to convert more disciples to their movement. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

ERROR:
Redirection Error: Incorrect information. You have the wrong church listed under redirection. A totally different church then what is listed, "International Christian Church" is being redirected to the page for: The "International Church of Christ" Page. This is poor organization and could be used by the International Church of Christ members to slash the other church with biased options. The International Christian Churches should have their own page. All I see is a page for Kip Mckean and then one for the City of Angels congregation. Nothing found for the movement or fellowship of the "International Christian Church" If you could, please correct this error. It would be appreciated if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.211.247 (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalism vs Evangelicalism
Many people, especially the media, gets confused by the difference between "Fundamentalist" and "Evangelical."

An Evangelical would for instance, participate within the umbrella organization of the National Association of Evangelicals and would therefore ascribe to their statement of faith. Evangelicalism (or more accurately) Neo-Evangelicalism arose in the late 1940's and 1950's under its primary architects Carl F. H. Henry, Billy Graham, and Harold John Ockenga. Evangelicalism has a broad range of interests, ranging from human rights (even before birth) and thus fighting injustice, slavery, involuntary prostitution; they are interested in social justice, including issues of poverty. A common thread is a respect for Scripture as normative for faith and life and a commitment to inerrancy, but that proper interpretation of the Bible is key for correct understanding of the Bible, which can involve some biblical criticism insights.

Fundamentalism originally arose in the earlier part of the 20th century and tends to hold to very literal interpretations of the Bible. They tend not to be as interested in intellectual pursuits including biblical scholarship. Fundamentalists tend to be much more narrowly focused compared to Evangelicalism, and tend not to be as interested in issues of social justice or social welfare.

Thus the International Churches of Christ by every evaluation is MUCH more in line with Fundamentalism compared to Evangelicalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.49.52.20 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Christian context, "Fundamentalist" has a much more specific technical meaning than "literalist" and "conservative on social issues." You might want to look at the articles Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalism.  While the ICoC share many doctrinal beliefs with fundamentalist churches, they come from a different historical tradition. EastTN (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The classification is Christian restorationist and Christian fundamentalism. But the orientation is Evangelical Protestant. You can find reference about this!--Allarcoshos (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with the ARDA reference is that offers three options for Protestant Christianity: "Other theology", "Mainline Protestant", and "Evangelical Protestant".   I doubt that anybody from either Community of Christ or Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ will claim that their theological orientation is congruent with the other.jonathon (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I emailed the ARDA people who pointed me to this: ARDA does not have another category for Fundamentalist.


 * From: ARDA@pop.psu.edu
 * Hi,
 * Thanks for your email. You are probably correct, but we do not have a 'fundamentalist' category in our larger groupings.  The categories actually come from some standard classifications used in social science research (see the bottom of this page: http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/RCMS_Notes.asp).


 * The issue is mainly that we need to keep the number of categories to a reasonable number so the bar charts at the top of the membership reports are not overwhelming. So, as always happens when you try to aggregate together religious groups, there are some that do not fit as well into a category as others.


 * Chris Scheitle
 * Research Associate

Having a degree from a theological seminary, I think I'd choose more accurately than you would. I can also check with Mark Noll or George Marsden if you'd prefer. My buddy is finishing his Ph.D. dissertation with them. (revealdotorg) 17:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.143.194 (talk)


 * It's not really a matter of which of us can do the best job of choosing a category for this group - it's a question of what reliable sources we can find for it. The ICoC is particularly problematic, because it arose from a branch of the restoration movement, but then morphed dramatically under the leadership of a couple of charismatic individuals and the influence of other groups.  Once we find some solid sources, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they disagree with each other. EastTN (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

People outside the International Churches of Christ and the two new movements don't know much about the ICOC and the two new movements due to the fact that the ICOC and the two new movements don't release any information to the public in general. And most of the information might or might not be correct. No one leaves the ICOC on good terms. People leave the ICOC because they are unhappy and disgruntled. I know because I am an ex-ICOC member. The ICOC will work hard to keep members from leaving the movement and those that leave have to struggle in order to leave the movement. I know because when I left the other members would call me day and night, come to my house, sit in my driveway and try to convince me that I need to "repent" and return to the movement. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also the ICOC does not have many buildings that the ICOC owns to meet in. In my 5 years as an ICOC disciple every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening service was held in a hotel meeting room, park, rented church room, or some other rented place. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Multi-racial/ethnic church
Just wondering why there is NO conversation on this very unique aspect of the church. Not anywhere. Why is that? Noticed that the article emphasizes the mechanics of the church but no outcomes. Why is this so? One mechanical point that is incorrect is members joined a the heavenly kingom. It was that the church was considered the kingdom on earth. As a former member of the New York church (88-94) I can personally say it influenced in a positive manner the social, racial, relationship skills of a great many young people. I did not see any information in the article treating the demographics of the congregation (approx ages 15-45 when I joined) The church taught personal transparency and integrity (the purpose of discipling partners to aid in this process)not as optional personality traits but as necessary to personal improvement. Many things are not discussed here. The social dynamic. The moving in of disciples with disciples. Also as a former disciple I will concede the strong arm tactics regarding money and prosyletizing. Yet I am concinced that the prosyletizing was intended to be an offshoot of the infectious nature of the movement and not the regimented mandate it evolved into. Sorry. too much opining. Please solicit corrections regarding "the kingdom" and a new citation to outline the facts surrounding the multi racial nature of the congregations. Thanks70.11.68.169 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find any good references for this, then please include this work into the page. Because we cannot include original research (OR), it is necessary to find a book, periodical, neutral web page or newspaper that makes the positive comments you suggest are the case. Unfortunately wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. Hyper3 (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv Here is one good source:  A neutral report/investigation that ABC News 20/20 did in the 1990s. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Former Members
I am a former member of the International Churches of Christ. I was in the ICOC from 1993 until 2007. I left the ICOC because of the following practices that lead me to believe that the ICOC is a cult:

1. One-on-one daily discipling. Each member had a discipler with whom each member had to keep in daily contact with and obey.

2. Financial Contributions. 10% of one's income is required a a contribution. Often members were encouraged to give 20% up to even 50% of their incomes to the cult. Twice a year members would give 20 times their weekly contribution in what was called a "Special Contribution." I've seen people empty out savings accounts and give their life savings to the cult. I've seen people sell businesses and give the monies to the cult. I've seen young people go without food in order to give to the cult.

3. Forced Dating and Planned marriages. I've seen the cult force people to date and force people to get married. I've seen the cult force people to stop dating and force people not to get married. Dating is required every Saturday for all single members. Members can only date who the cult approves of and no member may date anyone outside the cult.

4. Cult households. All single members are required to live together in apartments. This makes it easier for the cult to control members. Married couples are considered a household. Marriages are regulated. The cult will regulate sexual relations among married couples, finances among singles and married couples, and day-to-day living situations of all members. Basically the leadership goes up through the discipling chain, through the bible talk leaders, house church leaders, area leaders, etc.

5. Forced fasting. Whenever a leader calls one to fast that person or congregation had better fast or get punished.

6. Punishment. Punishment is dished out in what is called "rebuking." Punishment may be physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, etc. Punishment is mostly abusive designed to shame a person into obeying the cult leaders.

7. Forced sin confession meetings. Once a week members are required to attend group sin confession meetings. Each member would go before the group, confess his/her sins, and get some punishment.

8. Attend all meetings of the body even if they are daily meetings. Failure to attend meetings will lead to punishment.

9. Give the cult all of your personal information. Name, address, credit card numbers, bank account numbers. . . let the cult know everything.

10. Members are not allowed to disobey leaders as leaders are appointed representatives of God. If disobeying God is a sin then disobeying a leader appointed by God is even worse a sin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv This is a windows media video of the ABC News 20/20 investigation into the ICOC. In this video many former members and former leaders call the ICOC a cult and tell horror stories of ICOC cult abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Correctly?
I hope that my edit of the main ICOC page was done correctly. I wanted to add some quotes from various ICOC leaders with a reference in the controversy section. My problem with the article on the ICOC is that someone named TransylvanianKarl has turned the article into a Pro-ICOC article, posting controversial and incorrect information, and turned it into a page filled with ICOC links instead of references. The ICOC page really needs moderation. I want only correct information to be posted on the ICOC page. That's why I included the video of the ABC News 20/20 investigative report on the ICOC and references from Rick Ross' Institute on cults. I don't want the ICOC and TransylvanianKarl to use the ICOC factual wikipedia page as a tool to recruit people into the ICOC. TransylvanianKarl's edits are not neutral they are all pro-ICOC. I want people to know that there are other viewpoints than the pro-ICOC viewpoint. Many people believe that the ICOC is a cult and do not consider it to be a church; however; with TransylvanianKarl's edit of the ICOC page only the pro-ICOC side is presented and all the links go to ICOC run websites instead of neutral sources. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Andreasmperu
Andreasmperu seems to keep deleting relevant information about the International Churches of Christ that is anti-ICOC and anti-ICC. I wish Andreasmperu would stop doing this as I have backed up everything I have added by facts and factual evidence. I believe that Andreasmperu is a member of the ICOC/ICC and is trying to make the ICOC/ICC page a pro-ICOC/ICC page that can be used for evangelistic purposes. Andreasmperu's version of the ICOC page is not neutral at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Request For Wikipedia Help
Every time that I make a legitimate edit using reputable sources, some of which are even ICOC/ICC in origin, to the International Churches of Christ page Andreasmperu erases them. Andreasmperu's version of the ICOC/ICC page is not neutral; it's pro-ICOC and pro-ICC. Shouldn't all the relevant facts about the ICOC/ICC be reported whether the facts are positive or negative? I am requesting Wikipedia's help. Qewr4231 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few things that I have added
ABC News 20/20 did an investigative report on the International Churches of Christ. ABC News 20/20 got opinions and statements from the ICOC and former members of the ICOC. You will need windows media player to see this ABC News 20/20 investigative report. You can see that report here: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv

Why?

I added this because I want people to see facts about the ICOC from an unbiased news source such as ABC. ABC gave ex-members of the ICOC/ICC a chance to respond and ABC gave the ICOC/ICC a chance to respond. Both sides weighed in on the cult debate. Why do people keep deleting links to the ABC News 20/20 investigative report on the ICOC/ICC? I think current ICOC/ICC members are making these edits in the hopes of squashing any negative factual evidence on the ICOC/ICC to make the ICOC/ICC Wikipedia article a pro-ICOC and pro-ICC article. Qewr4231 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Another Edit

The International Churches of Christ have been surrounded by controversy over the years; media sources from Christianity Today (an evangelical periodical) to town newspapers to popular magazines (such as Rolling Stone) have included articles about members and by former members. There have been TV exposés such as "Believe It or Else" on ABC's 20/20, on 10/15/1993.You will need windows media player to view the following report: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv

Why?

I thought people should see the ABC News 20/20 investigative report that the article mentions in this paragraph so I added a link to the original ABC News 20/20 Investigative report that can be viewed using Windows Media Player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Another Edit

Bible Talks

Bible Talk small groups of disciples that meet usually once a week. They can meet almost anywhere, including college dormitories, restaurants, and members' houses. Bible Talks, or 'Family Groups', are designed so that disciples can read the Bible together and build relationships with others in the church. All are encouraged to invite guests as a way for the guest to be introduced to the Church in a more informal setting.[53]

There is a group called Cults On Campus(http://www.cultsoncampus.com/) that reports on cult and cultist activity at universities around the USA. I found the following article listed on their website:

"The Story of One Woman Leaving the International Church of Christ - by Drew Bratcher, Washingtonian Magazine, Washington, DC (Photos of Jenny Hunter included.)

A straight-A senior at Georgetown went to a Bible-study group. But the promise of heaven wound up turning her life into hell...

...Not long after joining the International Church of Christ, Jenny Hunter stood on Key Bridge considering whether suicide was better than life as a church disciple...

...The church recruited on college campuses...

...In January 2006, a year after returning home, Jenny entered Wellspring, a cult-recovery center in Ohio...In her two weeks at Wellspring, she found people who understood what had happened to her....

...She has also started a nonprofit, the Alliance for Cult Recovery & Education, to inform college students about cults... "

The above summary written by Cults on Campus (http://www.cultsoncampus.com/) was taken from the following Washingtonian news article: http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/8429.html The Washingtonian news article was also discussed on the ICC Discussion page: http://forums.delphiforums.com/ICCdiscussion/messages?msg=21926.1

Why?

I wanted people to know the real facts about ICOC/ICC Bible talks and not just the pro-ICOC/pro-ICC version. I included proper sources to legitimate websites and magazines. One of the sources is even an ICOC/ICC website itself. I wanted people to see what happens at Bible talks and how Bible talks are used by the ICOC/ICC as a recruiting tool. Bible talks aren't just Bible Studies. Bible talks are meetings that are held anywhere for the purpose of recruiting new members into the ICOC/ICC and the sources I posted are evidence that Bible Talks are used for new member recruiting. Qewr4231 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete my posts on this talk page as they explain why I made the edits that I did Qewr4231 (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)