Jump to content

Talk:International Churches of Christ: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Why is neutrality being questioned?
Line 374: Line 374:


Rob Pinion
Rob Pinion

== Why is neutrality being questioned? ==

I haven't really seen one single decent thread here about the neutrality of this wiki entry.

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

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

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

Revision as of 16:12, 29 March 2006

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

Rlquall 12:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Purported cult

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

International Churches of Christ
The International Churches of Christ (formerly known as the Boston Church of Christ) is a Bible-based church claiming about 130,000 members (2001) that emphasizes total commitment to its teachings. It has been called a cult by both the Christian countercult movement and some secular critics. Although most of its theology is Evangelical, the Christian countercult movement has raised objections to its belief that it essentially is the only church following the true gospel. They and secular critics claim that the church is extremely aggressive in proselytizing, seeks to control its members, and exerts undue psychological pressue to keep people in the church. News reports indicate that some colleges have banned the church from proselytizing on their campuses.
The church responds to such allegations on its Web site:
What, then, do we say to the charge that we are a cult? If the charge is the same that was leveled against the early church, then we are glad to be identified with them. "But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect" (Acts 28:22). If, however, the charge is the same as that leveled against destructive extremist groups in our day, then we say, "No!" We, the members of the International Churches of Christ, are nothing more than disciples of Jesus Christ who are attempting to restore the movement that God began in the first century. That movement turned the world upside down in its day, just as we expect it to do today.

Since the ICOC is a cult, we should probably elaborate more on their cultic methods and behaviour.

References:

Grouping of ICOC Churches

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

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

PSpadaro 16:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the following links here:

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


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

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

Hello! This is an abridged extract of relevent points from the link above:

Acceptable
  1. Sites that point out truths about the ICOCs cultic recruiting methods
  2. Sites that help former members heal from the damage this cult inflicted on them
  3. Official sites.
  4. Sites that have been cited or used as references.
  5. A book or other text.
  6. On multiple POV.
  7. High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.
May be acceptable
  1. Web directories.

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

New External Links: arguments for new links on article

In response to the above post: this list of links demonstrate various points of view, EG,

Acceptable
  1. On multiple POV.

-ma

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

Current Members

  • Disciples Today A subscriber-supported web portal for those who are dedicated to following Jesus in our world today.
    • This site is from the perspective of current members. (Comment by ma)
    • From the About Us page at Disciples Today:
  • To inform, inspire, teach, unify and record the history of disciples of Jesus today. Our goal is connection of disciples and churches so that we might glorify God, mature as Christians, deepen our fellowship and accomplish God's dream for every person to have the opportunity for a relationship with him. To spread the word of Kip McKean, our cult leader.
  • To provide a comprehensive connection to relevant, verified and credible information about the International Churches of Christ, a family of churches that stretches around the world.
Now comparing this with About from icocinfo.org

A Comprehensive Information Source
ICOC Info offers what I believe is the most comprehensive on-line collection of current data on membership in our fellowship of churches. More information on this effort to collect and maintain accurate church statistics can be found here. In addition, I hope this website will be a resource of all kinds of useful information for members and friends of our churches alike. To this end, I post links to church websites, contact information, and an event schedule .

This is two links supporting the same POV, and one should be chosen.
brenneman(t)(c) 12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I don't think one site can be chosen over the other, since they have different (and complementary) types of content. They actually go together, I think. One page explains the beliefs, and the other site shows data. -ma

Mixed Perspective

  • ICOC Blogspot A blog of hot topics from ICC DF (above) and other discussion forums, by an ex-member. Also contains numerous links to psychological studies and other ICC-related web sites.
    • In these links, the ICC Discussion Forum offer mixed perspectives between former and current members, and others who are linked to the ICC in some way (family members, etc). It is the main ground for debates between current, ex-, etc. members and is representatively moderated. ICOC Blogspot summarizes "hot topics" from the ICC Discussion Forum. (Comment by ma)
    • I agree that this link should be on the main page. It is partly a nicer GUI to the link above, but does have a bit more coherence, as well as proving an excellent link-list.
      brenneman(t)(c) 12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great. I've moved this link over. -ma
  • ICOC News Unofficial news site covering the ICOC
    • A news site with mixed perspectives of current and ex-members. (Comment by ma)
    • From the Top 20 most viewed articles on this site:
  1. Chicago Repentance -- Steve Staten - (5559 reads)
  2. Marty Wooten Responds to Henry Kriete's Letter - (4280 reads)
  3. The ICOC Salaries Issue - (4021 reads)
  4. From Babylon to Zion: REVOLUTION THROUGH RESTORATION III - (3487 reads)
  5. LONDON DISCIPLES SPEAK IN REPLY TO KIP’S LETTER - (3435 reads)
  6. Research On Salaries - (3297 reads)
  7. San Francisco Letter To Members - (3287 reads)
Of these, only the sixth is critical or represents a different POV than those in the "Current Members" section.
brenneman(t)(c) 12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but I believe that only shows how many look to view articles about the claims to "reform" on this site. Most recently, this site also displays somewhat critical articles, but a "reforming" member perspective (my own term referring to those in "reforming" ICoCs). I'm on the border with this one because of the number of "pro-ICOC" announcements on this site.

Here's a quote that shows the perspective of this site's editor:

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

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

Former Members

  • REVEAL Research Examine Verify Educate Assist Liberate (REVEAL), an organization of former members of the ICOC
    • This link contains solely the perspective of former members. (Comment by ma)
    • Does not appear to have been updated in over a year: Recent News. Other links are more relevent.
      brenneman(t)(c) 12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say we leave it off then, since it does not look like it will be updated anytime soon. It is linked on ICOC Blogspot as well. Link to be revisited, if this site does get revamped. -ma

History of ICOC Fraud

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

Academic Thesis on ICOC

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

Overall comments

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

Discussed External Links: Added

Since I haven't heard from other editors I'm assuming these links have been happily and sufficiently explained. I'll add them to the External Links section and if you want to discuss more let me know. — ma 00:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's terribly quiet...

And we only seem to engage when the links are off the main page. As this discussion had reached no conclusion, I'm re-setting the links to the state they were in (i.e. not on the main page).
brenneman(t)(c) 12:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I've been out of town with little access to web or email. I'm new to this so help me get what it is that needs to happen. I don't get it :( But now I see your comments and now I'm beginning to understand better how this process works. Do appreciate more explanation on what a "leisurely pace" for you is. I personally find this to be going like molasses. But your comments are interesting and insightful. Would appreciate getting these links on a bit faster. Why don't we aim to decide on the rest of these links by end of this week? :) --ma 18:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's more United Nations, less White House, isn't it? Talk talk talk, and not much getting done! As to the way things work, usually the outcomes are a combination of debate, popularity contest, and endurance test. Since everyone has equal power (e.g. reverts are easy to do) in the end it's about compromise, getting everyone to agree, etc. A good idea is to look over Resolving disputes. Since there are (currently) only two of us talking, if we can't agree on something (which seems unlikely!) then this link explains really well how things work out. But the key thing to notice is that everything takes time. That being said, I'm happy to close this by the end of the week (Friday wikitime). Have a look at the comments, tell me what you think, we'll work out something that makes us equally unhappy!
    brenneman(t)(c) 12:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • HA, great analogy! I've responded to all of your comments, let me know your thoughts. --ma 16:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Me experimenting with tables, just for fun

Trying to summarize our positions to date:

Link You Me Result
Unofficial ICOC info In In In
Disciples Today In Out ?
ICC Discussion Forum In Out ?
ICOC Blog Spot In In In
ICOC News In Out ?
REVEAL Out Out Out
KipMcKean.com Out Out Out
ICOC Investigation In Out ?
thesis ? ? ??
Total "Ins" 6+? 2+? ??

Well, we're making some progress!

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

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

Link You Me Result
Unofficial ICOC info In In In
Disciples Today In Out In
ICC Discussion Forum In Out Out
ICOC Blog Spot In In In
ICOC News In Out In
REVEAL Out Out Out
KipMcKean.com Out Out Out
ICOC Investigation In Out In
Academic Paper AOL Link In In In
Total "Ins" 7 3 6

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

brenneman(t)(c) 14:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cute. I'll review and let you know what I think in a bit. :) --ma 21:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I am still fighting for ICOC Investigation. I think it's better to have this out on the page so people can check this more quickly after reading about the criticism. I see it as a "catalog" of the investigations and controversy. --ma 18:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Bahh! I've lost my glass slipper!

Well, our agreed deadline has passed, I'm turning back into a pumpkin, and I've left the ball in your court, haven't I. (Man there were some serious mixed metaphors there.)
The fairest thing to do is probably to leave it up to you. I've made how I feel pretty clear, and we did agree to finish this. So, put the links you want on the main page, just try and be fair with me, ok? I'll leave this on my watchlist, and if someone else wants to put a link on, I'd like it discussed here first. Does that seems reasonable? Sorry to lose all my steam at the end, and I don't want you to feel like I put you through all this for nothing, I'm very happy with the results here. I'm just going to have WP:FAITH. (Pun intended.)
brenneman(t)(c) 16:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That sounds reasonable. And btw, thanks for the introduction to world of Wiki... --ma 19:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am the webmaster for two websites about the ICOC. Kipmckean.com and ICOCinvestigation.com.

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

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

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

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

Jenchambers

  • Well. As you can see we've had a bit of debate about whether to include your sites. If not, see above. I'm open to putting ICOC Investigation as a separate link. KipMcKean.com does not work as an ICOC article link, as your site's info is not really about the ICOC itself (especially as the groups have splintered). If there was an article about Kip McKean, I believe the link might fit better over there, perhaps paired with other links that give an alternative perspective.--ma 01:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your response. I would ask that you re-consider adding the Kip McKean website to the ICOC information. Kip invented the ICOC. When he resigned, many of the churches began floundering and many are just now figuring out how to be a church with Kip's control. Kip is actively pulling the church back under his control. Read his most recent articles, and you see that he is putting pressure on ALL of the ICOC churches to join back with him, or be considered a dead, false church. So I believe Kip is very much still a part of any story about the ICOC churches. Jenchambers 21:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links - again

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

Four ([1], [2], [3], [4]) of the current six links are linking newstickers, portals, blogs. I generally consider such links to be unencyclopedic. By their very nature, they have rapidly changing contents and so cannot be seen as background material or references for the article. Of course, they are useful (for some definition of "useful"), but providing useful links is the mission of a web directory, not an encyclopedia.

Pjacobi 22:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:external links for the guidelines on links. Essentially the only links that are strongly discouraged are commercial sites selling something. There is no prohibition on blogs. Links used for references should be put into a separate "references" section. -Willmcw 23:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read the entire Wikipedia:external links, starting with Wikipedia is not a web directory. And some of the talk page. Compare with precedents in other articles. Start with
Also scan the list of "What should be linked to". Why do we have three blogs/newstickers from the ICOC, but not the official site?
Pjacobi 23:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an official website? http://www.icoc.org/ is not active. -Willmcw 00:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It went down because of the split, I understand. But the Portland faction is at http://www.upsidedown21.org/ --Pjacobi 00:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The official site can only be accessed via the wayback machine, http://web.archive.org/web/20021201135101/icoc.org/icocmain/index_new.htm . (http://www.upsidedown21.org is only a feed from the portland site, http://www.portlandchurch.org.) Perhaps a link to the cached version of icoc.org for historical purposes only would be in order.

I've tightened up the links a bit. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Says who?

  • Many churches feel that they are moving forward in a new positive way, and are happy their errors have brought to light so that they can be changed.

This is one of many assertions that are probably unverifiable. Can we limit ourselves to verifiable info please? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Church

Is there a way to add some information on the Indianapolis Church of Christ split in 1994? The chronology and transcript seemed prophetic of the church's eventual split. 

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

Hubzilla 08:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

External Links: Discussion and consensus

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

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

Sin Camper

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

  • There are a great many people who would disagree with your POV that Sincamper is "not factual." It's evident there are multiple POV on the ICOC and the SinCamper site makes succinct witticisms on the nature of the ICOC from one of multiple perspectives. There is nothing on Wikipedia:External_links to legitimate removing this link from the list. If there were another brilliant parody site on ex-members, I would unhesitatingly support its inclusion. ma 19:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sites critical of the ICOC are entirely appropriate, as are sites supportive. External links guidelines clearly allow single point of view external links, as long as they are indicated as such. Edgar181 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sincamper.com is not critical it is ridiculous. The points of view portrayed on sincamper do not help one to better understand the problems associated with the ICOC, they are slanderous. How is a cartoon of Harrison Ford half-naked going to help someone better understand the problems associated with the ICOC? This link needs to be terminated.
    • From an outsider's POV it actually clarifies a lot of issues associated with the ICOC, in a humorous way. The Harrison Ford cartoon demonstrates the cult of personality that goes on still the ICOC and associated churches. This is a recognized alternative point of view and is not slander - further, your personal offense at the cartoons don't disqualify the link. ma 21:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Sincamper here. I am the first to agree that some of my comics are strictly goofy takes on ICC culture that exist purely to illicit laughter at that culture's expense while many of them are very serious anecdotal vignettes of what that culture was very much like often filtered through my wild use of hyperbole and exaggeration to target truths that will be familiar with any readers who have even a small amount of experience living in that culture. On the whole, the absurdity of the culture was not recognized and lampooned in it's day, as everyone from Kip to the most foolish Assistant Bible Talk Leader took every aspect of ICC culture as dead serious and important, even lofty. Hindsight and 200,000 (a conservative figure) wounded individuals can offer a considerably different perspective on the legitimacy of the seriousness of ICC culture and I believe today, for every one person who stand by the ICC's relevance and seriousness as a vehicle for God's machinations on earth, there are 5 who believe it to be a cross between everything from Amway to Naziism, but who don't look upon their experiences in the group as sacred or edifying.
It has always been my hope that the comics will help bring at least my own persoanl view point of the many ironies of ICC culture to light through parody to help those who have suffered and survived ICC culture, to heal and be ABLE to laugh at areas and experiences to which they were unable to understand or view as humorous during those destructive days. The pain is very real. The wounds are very real. The damage done to many is very serious. I do not make light of the damage done to individuals by the ICC culture. I have tremendous experience living almost my entire adult life in that culture and was fully committed to it, in earlier times. I view the wake of destruction as ripples that keep spreading outward from the Ground Zero of classic ICC culture that will continue to haunt individuals for their entire lifetime. One method, that many should consider is to undertake some form of therapy to get help with coping with issues related to ICC experiences. Another, is to be able to view it objectively, freely, without defense and so to be able to finally laugh at many of the absurdities and be able to purge emotions that are usually hard to express. When someone with ICC culture experience views a comic that has underlying truth of that culture but is silly on the surface, the reaction can be one of extreme familiarity and a knowing smile can escape, with a feeling that someone else understands or has similar experiences which is a healing thing for most. Another, less familiar reader can just see the surface goofy comic and miss the underlying truth and see it as simply offensive and unhelpful in understanding ICC culture. Though I do these comics to help people who never have been members to get a glimpse of what it was like for members, the bulk of my cartoons are for members and ex-members.
As for the Harrison Ford comic. The POINT of that comic goes beyond the surface of a silly old pic of Harrison Ford who has nothing to do with ICC whatsoever, but to illustrate the ICC use of SPIN concerning volatile and relevent topics to keep feeding misinformation to deflect criticism and plea for loyalty from members rather than exposing and admitting to inadequacies within the culture. The "joke" in that comic, to illustrate spin, is that the ICC would hire a famous person, even pay them, to endorse the party line to preserve the culture. I try not to spell these things out because humor works on a subconcsious level and rarely works if explained. I leave it up to the reader to decide if my "point" is valid or my humor "funny".
Having said that, I am going to rework the Sincamper.com site so that it is full of the useful, more on-target parodies of ICC culture and less populated with the completely wild offensive, easlily misunderstood episodes that require explanation or defense. Check out the site soon and you will find it revamped with the most on-target episodes I have yet been able to accomplish. My aim is to help people to heal through laughter.
Best, Sincamper
PS: Email me with any hate mail if you must at sincamper@yahoo.com

We need more.

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

Restore advocacy section

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

New Source: Awesome Families: The Promise of Healing Relationships in the International Churches of Christ

This is an interesting new source on the ICOC that someone should reference in the article.

  • Awesome Families: The Promise of Healing Relationships in the International Churches of Christ

Kathleen Jenkins, an associate professor of Sociology at William & Mary wrote and conducted research for this book while her family members were part of the ICOC.

(From Rutgers Press web site)

Description: Denounced by some as a dangerous cult and lauded by others as a miraculous faith community, the International Churches of Christ was a conservative evangelical Christian movement that grew rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s.

Among its followers, promises to heal family relationships were central to the group's appeal. Members credit the church for helping them develop so-called "awesome families"-successful marriages and satisfying relationships with children, family of origin, and new church "brothers and sisters." The church engaged an elaborate array of services, including round-the-clock counseling, childcare, and Christian dating networks-all of which were said to lead to fulfilling relationships and exciting sex lives. Before the unified movement's demise in 2003-2004, the lure of blissful family-life led more than 100,000 individuals worldwide to be baptized into the church.

In Awesome Families, Kathleen Jenkins draws on four years of ethnographic research to explain how and why so many individuals-primarily from middle- to upper-middle-class backgrounds-were attracted to this religious group that was founded on principles of enforced community, explicit authoritative relationships, and therapeutic ideals. Weaving classical and contemporary social theory, she argues that members were commonly attracted to the structure and practice of family relationships advocated by the church, especially in the context of contemporary society where gender roles and family responsibilities are often ambiguous.

Tracing the rise and fall of this fast-growing religious movement, this timely study adds to our understanding of modern society and offers insight to the difficulties that revivalist movements have in sustaining growth.

I removed the external link for the so-called "official website" because it was actually a link to this Wiki article. Obviously this is not ICOC's offical website. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fixed the link with the archive version at bibalex. not sure how it got changed to wikipedia. http://archive.bibalex.org/web/20010202033500/http://icoc.org/ 24.193.57.216 13:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted changes by User:198.45.19.20

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

Advocacy Section

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

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

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

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

JustinStroud 17:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are the reconstruction phase and remnant concept worth inclusion?

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

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

A REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE DISCIPLING MOVEMENT AMONG CHURCHES OF CHRIST by Gene Vinzant

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

Rob Pinion

Why is neutrality being questioned?

I haven't really seen one single decent thread here about the neutrality of this wiki entry.

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ&oldid=46024774"