Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:31, 10 May 2012

Christianity C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2014-03-24

Archives

May 2005 — Aug 2007, August 2007 — August 2010

This page is not a forum for general discussion about International Churches of Christ. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about International Churches of Christ at the Reference desk.

Someone needs to go through and edit this article

In the description of the Church there is too much use of "we" and "our." The parts containing the "we" and "our" over and over sound like members of the ICOC that are writing that part of the article. I know some corrections were made but it still sounds biased and should not be in and unbiased encyclopedia article. I don't even know who the "we" and "our" are. I have highlighted a few ours and we in the following part of the article: Qewr4231 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio removed. Arcandam (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead Links and Links to ICOC owned and operated websites

1. Some of the links in the reference section are dead links. For example Links 62, 66, 67, 81, 82, 83 are dead links that go nowhere.

2. Most of the links go to International Churches of Christ owned and operated websites which are biased and not encyclopedic in nature. Qewr4231 (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

When the link is refering the beliefs and official doctrines of the church it is perfectly normal and common practice of other Misplaced Pages articles on churches and their beliefs. 00nuthinbutthetruth00 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) Internet Archive (2) Misplaced Pages:ABOUTSELF Arcandam (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems with facts in the article

"The International Churches of Christ (typically abbreviated to ICOC) is a body of co-operating non-denominational, religiously conservative, and racially integrated Christian congregations, an offshoot from the Mainline Churches of Christ. This group is known for and has a long history of showing charity to the poor. Nearly 2.5 million poor people are served each year through the ICOC volunteers and benevolent partner HOPE Worldwide "

The part above that is in bold and italics can not be proven. It is not proven, and can not be proven, that "Nearly 2.5 million poor people are served each year through the ICOC volunteers and benevolent partner Hope Worldwide." Hope Worldwide is owned by the International Churches of Christ and this information has not been proven. Even the links connected to this so called fact are links to biased ICOC websites.

HOPEww is not owned by the ICOC, they are a section 21 company. They have independently audited finances and service reports. Independent auditors varify that they do serve 2.5 million disadvantaged people each year. If you have evidence to prove otherwise then produce it, otherwise do not remove verified information from this article. 00nuthinbutthetruth00 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We should make a seperate article about HOPEww. Arcandam (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam, you are welcome to do exactly that but since it is a Benevolent partner of the ICOC it is relevant to include it in an article such as this.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that HOPEww should be mentioned in this article too; we can describe it in more detail in its own article. Arcandam (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See HOPE worldwide. Arcandam (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The following section needs to be encyclopedic and not opinion based:

"The ICOC regards the New Testament of the Bible as the supreme authority on doctrine, ecclesiastical structure, and moral beliefs. They acknowledge the Old Testament as historically accurate and divinely inspired, and its principles as true and beneficial, but hold that its laws are not binding under the new covenant in Christ unless otherwise taught in the New Testament. Through holding that their doctrine is based on the Bible alone, and not on creeds and traditions, they claim the distinction of being "non-denominational". Members of the International Churches of Christ generally emphasize their intent to simply be part of the original church established by Jesus Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, which became evident on the Day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2. They believe that anyone who follows the plan of salvation as laid out in the scriptures is saved by the grace of God."

All of the links for this section go to ICOC websites. I have no way of knowing whether this information is true or not because all of the links go to ICOC owned and operated websites.

"The International Churches of Christ (typically abbreviated to ICOC) is a body of co-operating non-denominational, religiously conservative, and racially integrated Christian congregations, an offshoot from the Mainline Churches of Christ. This group is known for and has a long history of showing charity to the poor. Nearly 2.5 million poor people are served each year through the ICOC volunteers and benevolent partner HOPE Worldwide "

The part above in bold and italics, "This group is known for and has a long history of showing charity to the poor" is an opinion and not a fact. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It is removed. Arcandam (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Sometimes called the Boston Movement because of its early ties to the Boston Church of Christ, it is a "remarkable but controversial" restorationist Church which branched from the mainline Churches of Christ in the late 1980s under the leadership of Kip McKean. Many of its members have nothing but praise for the church and the ways it has helped heal broken relationships, escape addictions and find a relationship with Jesus."

The part above in bold and italics, "Many of its members have nothing but praise for the church and the ways it has helped heal broken relationships, escape addictions and fine a relationship with Jesus." is not supported by the article's links. This is also opinion and not fact. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It is removed. Arcandam (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are direct quotes taken from members of the church and referenced as such. That is consistent with Misplaced Pages rules and is clearly stated as opinions of church members. 00nuthinbutthetruth00 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:ABOUTSELF & WP:COI. Thanks in advance, Arcandam (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"The International Churches of Christ (typically abbreviated to ICOC) is a body of co-operating non-denominational, religiously conservative, and racially integrated Christian congregations, an offshoot from the Mainline Churches of Christ."

The part above in bold and italics, "The International Churches of Christ (typically abbreviated to ICOC) is a body of co-operating non-denominational, religiously conservative, and racially integrated Christian congregations" is not fact and is not supported by the links provided. This is opinion. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I edited the article and included a source for the claim that they are co-operating. Which part(s) do you disagree with? Arcandam (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Some of the practices of the International Churches of Christ have drawn criticism. The primary sources of complaint are the high expectations that is, the high commitment expected of members in terms righteous living, although to be fair, every convert goes through sessions of Bible studies where the beliefs and practices of the church are explained in detail before anyone can place membership or join the church. The expectations of time and money, (There are both a Sunday service and a midweek bible study and members are asked to tithe to support the work of the church) are clearly explained upfront. One of the doctrines of the International Churches of Christ has been the "One True Church" doctrine (recognizing repentant disciples who are baptized as part of the one universal church). The International Churches of Christ teaches that a person is saved by grace through a personal faith and the power of God at the point of repentance and baptism by immersion, and that once baptized, you are added to God's heavenly kingdom, and to the church here on earth. They believe that anyone, anywhere in any church that follows the plan of salvation as laid out in the bible is saved."

The part of the article in bold and italics above contains opinions, " . . .although to be fair, every convert goes through sessions of Bible studies where the beliefs and practices of the church are explained in detail before anyone can place membership or join the church. The expectations of time and money, (There are both a Sunday service and a midweek bible study and members are asked to tithe to support the work of the church) are clearly explained upfront." This is clearly opinion and not fact. How do people outside the ICOC know whether each person that joins the ICOC has been told of the commitment before hand? How do people outside of the ICOC know whether or not each person that joins the ICOC goes through Bible Studies? This is not fact, but opinion unless otherwise proven to be fact. Qewr4231 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the criticism-section should be rewritten by someone without a COI. I do not have enough spare time at the moment. Arcandam (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone has rewritten this article with a pro ICOC bias. The links all go to biased ICOC websites. Also the information is written to make the ICOC look good. The material is not encyclopedic in quality.

Someone has rewritten this article with a pro ICOC bias. The links all go to biased ICOC websites. Also the information is written to make the ICOC look good. The material is not encyclopedic in quality. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"The International Church of Christ (ICOC) is a fellowship of congregations who are bonded by the cross of Christ. We make our best efforts to love God and each other. We believe that the Bible is the word of God and is a marvelous guide for daily living. We appreciate the forgiveness that comes through Jesus Christ and are eager to share this good news with others."

The part in Bold and Italics above seems to be biased information and the information does not lend itself to a neutral, fact based encyclopedia article. The person who wrote this portion of the article is using "We" as if he or she is a member of the ICOC and posting biased information. Qewr4231 (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As if? That person probably is a member (WP:DUCK). I have removed those sentences. Arcandam (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole section below sounds like biased information. The person that wrote this section keeps putting the word "our" as if the author is part of the International Churches of Christ. The author keeps referring to "our churches" and "our salvation" and "our members" and keeps using references that make the article look biased. This section is not encyclopedic in content and nature at all. Qewr4231 (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio removed. Arcandam (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Some opinions are included in an encyclopedia article

I find that some of the statements in the first few paragraphs are not of encyclopedic quality. Furthermore someone has put in opinions and statements that are unverifiable. Take a look at this paragraphs right before the box:

"Sometimes called the Boston Movement because of its early ties to the Boston Church of Christ, it is a "remarkable but controversial" restorationist Church which branched from the mainline Churches of Christ in the late 1980s under the leadership of Kip McKean. Many of its members have nothing but praise for the church and the ways it has helped heal broken relationships, escape addictions and find a relationship with Jesus and make peace with God. But the church has not been without it's critics. Its assertive recruitment methods, high level of control (during the McKean era of the 1980s and 1990s) allegedly exercised by leadership over members through "discipling" partnerships, and rejection of the doctrines of some other churches have caused some researchers, observers, and ex-members to label the organization a cult in the broader sense of "extreme devotion to a set of beliefs." Historically church officials have been unapologetic for their energetic evangelism, believing this to be the duty of all true Christians, but have renounced any allegations of impropriety as unfounded, A few local churches have become autonomous after the recent disbandment of the old central leadership, and today it is difficult to make any generalizations about the organization collectively."

Let me point out which parts are opinion.

"Many of its members have nothing but praise for the church and the ways it has helped heal broken relationships, escape addictions and find a relationship with Jesus and make peace with God."

This statement is opinion and not fact. How do I know if this is fact? Can it be verified?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qewr4231 (talk • contribs)

I removed that sentence. Arcandam (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Those comments are verified because they are referenced quotes from the very people that made those statementsJamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:RS. Arcandam (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Historically church officials have been unapologetic for their energetic evangelism, believing this to be the duty of all true Christians, but have renounced any allegations of impropriety as unfounded"

How do people outside of the International Churches of Christ know whether or not "church officials have been unapologetic for their energetic evangelism, believing this to be a duty of all Christians . . ."  ??? How do people outside of the ICOC know that the ICOC's leaders have "renounced any allegations of impropriety as unfounded" ???

"A few local churches have become autonomous after the recent disbandment of the old central leadership, and today it is difficult to make any generalizations about the organization collectively."

What does it mean that "today it is difficult to make any generalizations about the organization collectively"  ??? Are you saying that people outside of the ICOC can't even describe the ICOC? This statement is opinion and not fact. Qewr4231 (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of International Chuches of Christ church sites and other pro-ICOC sites?

Why would someone include the International Churches of Christ church sites on the ICOC talk page? That seems as if it is pro-ICOC and advertising FOR the ICOC. There are too many links to ICOC sites which are not factual but evangelistic in nature. It's as if whoever is editing and writing the ICOC page is advocating and advertising on behalf of the ICOC. Misplaced Pages's ICOC page is not an ICOC recruiting tool. STOP THAT!!!! Also why would someone delete the factual experiences of ex-members of the ICOC? Qewr4231 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This page is biased in favor of the ICOC, International Churches of Christ, Kip Mckean, co-operation ICOC churches, and other movements of the ICOC

Most of the links go to ICOC websites. ICOC websites are biased towards the ICOC. Also many portions of this website seem to be written by followers of the International Churches of Christ. I know this because I was a leader in the International Churches of Christ and am now an ex-member.Qewr4231 (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to restore the balance according to WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE. Arcandam (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleaned up and written to encyclopedic standards

There is nothing about the International Churches of Christ that is encyclopedic. They make up their own rules and change the rules as they see fit. The sole purpose of the International Churches of Christ, Kip Mckean, Al Baird, and any movements spurned from the ICOC are to make the leaders at the top WEALTHY, RICH, and COMFORTABLE. Qewr4231 (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

ICOC Church pictures

Not many pictures of the International Churches of Christ exist because the ICOC does not have regular meeting locations. Instead the ICOC rents hotel meeting rooms, parks, and other community theaters in order to stay hidden from the mainstream. Qewr4231 (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be an extremely biased statement. Although after reading through your comments, I am not really surprised. The churches that I know of that do not meet in a building simply do so because they can not afford a building. Some even feel that it is a misappropriation of church funds to use money from the collection to buy a building. Actually plenty of pictures exist. I know of no instances of where they have been asked for though.

(I am currently posting from a public IP, should anyone do any research on edits made by this IP)168.28.180.30 (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC) (Brian Selph)

The ICOC does collect a lot of money. If they aren't buying church buildings and properties, then where does the money go to? Parks don't cost much to rent. Hotel meeting rooms don't cost that much to rent. The San Francisco Church of Christ which is now the Bay Area Christian Church collects hundreds of thousands of dollars every month. You can't tell me that is all spent on facilities rentals. Where does all that money go?? Qewr4231 (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have a church locator on one of those websites that was likely removed from the page on the grounds that it was advertising. If you go to www.disciplestoday.com and use the church locator to link to web pages of the various churches then you could probably find some decent pictures. If you look up Alpha Omega- North River Campus Ministry on facebook, then you could find a slew of pictures from baptisms to the International Campus Ministry Conference. It really isn't that terribly hard to find these things, you just have to know where to look or have the name of one church and you can find the rest (in most of the free world anyway. Some churches don't have such liberties).168.28.180.30 (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC) (Brian Selph)

Please see the image use policy for information on why Misplaced Pages cannot use just any image that appears on the Internet. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I think that this would not be a serious issue. In honor of the guidelines, the churches could likely be contacted and permission could be obtained to post photos from their websites. I am unsure if the Facebook photos would be public domain or not. I believe they are posted publicly for all to see but I'm not sure if they have even been published in a tangible form. This would make them ineligible for copy write. Privacy issues would be my main concern but most of the photo's were taken in public by students, save the photos from ICMC, some of which were in a building rented for the event. If someone could tell me what kind of pictures would be useful, then I may be able to bypass these issues entirely and take some pictures of my own to avoid issues of ownership and privacy. 168.28.180.30 (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC) (Brian Selph)

Fluffy paragraphs in Intro

I'm sorry, but these two paragraph simply must not be in the introduction. The first paragraph is mostly composed of unverifiable value judgments (citations to church sources notwithstanding), while the second is a bunch of buzzwords about future plans. A few nuggets, stripped of the advocacy language, might find a place in the body of the article. But as they are, these paragraphs are entirely unencyclopedic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. Arcandam (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bluemoonlet, your edits on this page are biased. You add unverified criticisms and take down varied info about the modern position and stance of the church. Let both the good and bad be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieBrown2011 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 please read WP:ABOUTSELF & WP:COI. Arcandam (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My language was not criticizing the article subject but reporting the criticisms of others. I even included a disclaimer. If my understanding is inaccurate, then please let's talk about it and improve the article further. As for the material that I removed, you have not responded to my reasons for removing it. Until you do, my argument stands. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You are removing encyclopedic material that is varifiable. The fluffy language is a good point and has been changed. But the rest is verifiable fact about the ICOC at the current time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster1967 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I hardly know how to receive what you say, as absolutely nothing had "been changed" when you wrote this; rather, you and others had put everything back into its original objectionable state. I have now given clear reasons in edit summaries for my changes. I have now removed only what is truly unreferenced and unverifiable, while some other things have been moved out of the Intro and into the body text. Please read WP:LEAD; please prevent the lead section from being too long and getting into too much minutiae. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I agree with BlueMoonlet. The Line "Their church services are contemporary, energetic and spiritually uplifting." is an opinion not a fact. "These relationships provide encouragement, support, teaching and accountability in living according to the scriptures." This is also an opnion and not fact. "Known for their diversity, devotion to the poor and love for one another . . ." I've never heard anyone outside the ICOC say this. Again this is an opinion. Qewr4231 (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with BlueMoonlet. Please follow WP:NPOV. Arcandam (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bluemoonlet, you claim to be concerned with encyclopedic accuracy yet you only ever reference and put up negative information about the ICOC. Any positive information you delete or after debate move to a lower section, effectively trying to bury it. That biased and not "encyclopedic." Let both the good and bad stand together. Do you have a personal history with the ICOC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster1967 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no personal history with the ICOC. I would appreciate you answering the same question. The reason I moved material to lower sections, as I already said, is that the lead was too long and detailed. The reason I have added only critical information is because it is currently under-represented in the lead section. Criticism of the ICOC has been quite widespread across mainstream Christianity, especially in the 1990s, and I think a brief mention of that is needed in the lead section. Yet my well-referenced sentence has been repeatedly removed without any really substantial discussion. Please discuss this issue more explicitly or let my edit stand. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me jump in here, there are already sections in the intro mentioning the controversial nature of the ICOC adding a third is unnecessary and repetitive.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please specify what you mean. Here is my analysis, going through the 5 paragraphs in the current Intro:

• Paragraph 1: No mention of controversy
• Paragraph 2: Uses the word "controversial" but no specifics because you keep removing them
• Paragraph 3: No mention of controversy
• Paragraph 4: Some mention of controversy within the movement
• Paragraph 5: Quote in reference to previous paragraph about how the movement has risen above its difficulties

What is entirely missing from the Intro is any mention of the considerable criticism that has come from outside the movement. I feel that your persistent efforts to keep mention of the latter out of the Intro is inappropriate. JamieBrown2011, would you mind answering, as I have already answered, whether you have any personal history with the ICOC? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I should add that, per the WP:COI policy, it is not necessarily a problem for an editor to have personal history with the article subject. However, it is a problem if your personal history leads you to care about promoting a good (or bad) view of the article subject, rather than caring about neutrality and impartiality. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have a history with the ICOC and know the organization well. There is both good and bad there like any group of people. Your bias to only putting up the bad is un-professional. You take down the good things about this group by claiming it is "subjective and un-encyplopedic" yet reference very subjective negative things without any concern or conscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster1967 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. As I have said, I am seeking a balanced NPOV. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In the past there have been ICOC members and members of the two new movements that have tried to insert a lot of fluff to use the ICOC[REDACTED] article as a tool for evangelism. I dislike that anyone would try to make the ICOC seem good or bad. Let the truth stand. Let the article be encyclopedic. There is a lot about the ICOC and the cults born from it that is hidden from the members and only kept within the realms of the highest leaders. (As I was a member and leader in the ICOC for almost 6 years; my opinion is that the ICOC and the new movements are pyramid schemes designed to make the leaders at the top rich and comfortable.)Qewr4231 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Qewr4231, I am not sure how this relates to the topic at hand. I don't believe they were talking about the fluff you were reffering to, although, I could be mistaken. I lived with an ICOC member, who joined the movement somewhere during the "genesis"/"expansion" era, last year and heard some stories of abuse of power and overbearing discipling partners. That was not the only side of the story that I heard though. In my brief history with the ICOC, I have been denied no such "hidden information" that I can find. I would question how recent your information was. That may make a considerable difference in the weight you should put on your input.

P.S. Qewr4231 Your statement about being a leader in the ICOC is a tad unclear. I believe you said you were a leader for almost 6 years and a member for longer. Is that correct? 168.28.180.30 (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC) (Brian Selph)

Brian Selph are you a member of the ICOC or one of the cults spurned from it? I said that I was a member of the ICOC for almost 6 years. I was even a leader in the ICOC. I have witnessed abusive practices in the ICOC with my own two eyes. I was a member in the San Francisco ICOC. I have witnessed forced fasting where the evangelist called the whole congregation to fast for one month. I have witnessed punishment of sins where one member is taken to a small room and broken down by a group of 3-6 members. I have witnessed group sin confession meetings where members have to confess their sins and receive counseling and punishment in front of a whole group. Members were regularly told that if they missed a Sunday service, Wednesday mid-week service, or Bible Talk that they would be losing their relationship with God. Members were also told that they were required to give at least 10% of their income to the ICOC. Members were often encouraged to give 20% or more of their incomes to the ICOC. Dating was regulated. People could only date if the sector leaders or region leaders or head evangelist gave them permission to date. We were forbidden to date outside the ICOC because the ICOC made it clear that only ICOC members were saved and true Christians. Everyone outside the ICOC was considered to be a non-Christian. The ICOC wanted all single members over the age of 18 to live in ICOC church households. Members were encouraged to live together and share apartments. Single men could share apartments with single men. Single women could share apartments with single women. Often at Bible Talks and Midweek services the congregations were split into male and female members. The male members met separately and the female members met separately. Twice a year Hope Worldwide would collect "special missions contributions" which meant a member had to give 10 times their regular weekly contribution twice a year. The ICOC often called for people to sacrifice. For some singles sacrifice meant skipping meals or not paying bills and giving that money to the ICOC as tithes and offerings. Whenever something conflicted with the ICOC meeting schedule it was called sin. I remember that the ICOC kept lists of the strong, dedicated members, the middle of the road members, and the weak members who were in danger of leaving the ICOC. I remember it was called sin to not bring a visitor to Sunday or Wednesday services. Evangelism was pushed hard and aggressively. According to the ICOC evangelism was the top priority in every disciple's life; more important that eating, sleeping, job, and family. I remember that disciples were told to sleep only 5 hours per night because anything more than this was considered laziness. I remember the "First Principles For New Believers" studies. Each member of the ICOC was supposed to learn how to study the Bible with people in order to get them to join the ICOC. I remember how the head evangelist and sector/region leaders used to preach that accepting Jesus Christ as one's Savior is not the correct way to get saved. The leaders preached that salvation comes through the First Principles study guide, passing of all the studies and challenges, then confessing that Jesus is Lord, and baptism. I remember how each disciple in the ICOC was given a discipler. Disciples had to be in contact with their discipler every day and give a report of what they did every day to their discipler. Disciplers would then report to their disciplers and so on until the very top of the leadership. Discipler's did not give advice; instead they were to be obeyed. Disciplers and leaders could tell the people under them to do something and if the disciples/members disagreed the disciples were consider to be sinning. The leader's words were law in the ICOC. I remember how Preston Shepherd and Russ Ewell used to tell us that since God has entrusted them with the souls of the San Francisco ICOC, and since God has given them all authority and power over the San Francisco congregation, disobeying a leader in anything meant disobeying God. That's what I remember. Qewr4231 (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that those years of your life were filled with such abuses of scripture and terrible experiences but the ICOC that exists today is very different, in the south east at the very least. The churches I have experienced are fairly loving places that don't try to demand or track a giving heart but merely emphasize the need for generous hearts among men to meet the needs of their fellow man. Sometimes it may be overemphasized but it is rarely pressed, that I know of. The only conclusion that I can come to is that elders and other leaders learned from their mistakes and the mistakes of others and shaped up over the years. The evangelist, teachers, and elders at my home congregation have preached against people having it in their head that we are the only church out there. In fact, I have run into several people not affiliated with the ICOC whose lives show that they are disciples. We can sometimes still get stuck in that rut of not knowing whether someone has truly been saved and just needs to repent of being luke-warm or they actually need to be baptized. As a result there is still some bad blood between us and people we have run across in the past. We teach people that they should know and understand what Jesus said, as well as know how he lived. If your life looks nothing like Jesus' then you probably aren't following him (hence the term disciple). Many people are quite surprised when they find that the "sinner's prayer" has very little foundation in the bible and is simply a relic from an idea gone awry in the first great awakening. We are also challenged regularly to "have the heart of the Bereans" (Acts 17:11) and go search the scriptures to see if what our leaders say is true. Dating is still encouraged to stay within the church but no one around here is chastised for doing otherwise. Honestly though, it is a poor idea to date someone who has vastly different convictions than you regardless of what body you are a part of. One needs to have a partner that supports their beliefs. If your partner disagrees with your beliefs then it is rare that they will support them when you are struggling to hold on to them. If your partner is not a Christian, then you have a problem (2 Corinthians 6:14). Although, if you are married to them, then that problem may only be fixable by sharing your faith with them and prayer for them. It should honestly be obvious if they are a Christian or not at that point though regardless of whether or not they attend the same church as you. Disciplers are no longer assigned; they are sought after and often times difficult to find in actuality. I have to miss midweek, bible talk, and Devo often because of my workload at school and most people are pretty understanding of it. The few that aren't are actually younger than me in the faith. I have seen many young Christians lose their faith in god because of lack of contact with the body. Regular meetings such as these provide a generally solid, albeit a bit legalistic means of regular contact with other Christians who can share their faith with these younger Christians so that they do not become like those in the parable of the sower. To answer your question, I am a member of North River Church of Christ, which is part of the ICOC. I can attest that NRCOC and the ICOC are cults of Jesus Christ. You however seem to hold an incorrect definition of a cult and should refer to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. (I hope I needn’t remind anyone that chopping and reproduction of these statements in a different context is a form of defamation punishable by U.S. law if public. Sorry, this is precaution that needs to be taken when speaking publicly on such a site) I cannot, however, say whether or not Kip's new movement or any other movements that broke off from ours are cults of Jesus, Kip, or whoever else that may have spurred them as I have not run into anyone from them. I can tell you that Kip has called the ICOC dead in the past and "called out a remnant", so to speak, to start his movement. If you would like to continue discussing things like this with me or just have any questions, my e-mail is Bselphspsu.edu . Please remove this sentence and the previous one after you read it Qewr4231.

To anyone who may be reading these. I understand that these may be long and off topic but I would plead that you not remove them until after Qewr4231 has read this reply. 168.28.180.30 (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC) (Brian Selph)

I'm sorry but this sounds like the same old rhetoric and jargon from when I was with the International Churches of Christ. I still believe Kip Mckean's new movement and the old movement to be cults. Any movements coming out of the ICOC new or old look like the same old cult. Just looks like the same thing repackaged. I could take some of the things you posted here, go and find a Kip Mckean or Russ Ewell, or any ICOC evangelists speeches and the rhetoric and jargon would be the same. If you would like me to find some speeches and sermons from when I was a member and compare them to what you just posted then let me know. Qewr4231 (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove what I post? Is it because I portray a negative view of the two movements that the ICOC has fractured into? Are you a member of one of the two movements? Qewr4231 (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read that again. Brian wrote (emphasis mine): "If you would like to continue discussing things like this with me or just have any questions, my e-mail is Bselphspsu.edu . Please remove this sentence and the previous one after you read it Qewr4231.". Arcandam (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. I hereby give anyone permission to edit and/or remove this particular comment. p.p.s. I've used {{@}} so that Brian does not get spammed.

"Remarkable and controversial"

Longstanding text in the Intro describes the article subject as "controversial", with a reference to a reliable source. User:JamieBrown2011 has changed this to read "remarkable and controversial", as the source does indeed put those words together. However, "controversial" is an objective description; you only need to observe that both strongly positive and strongly negative views of the article subject exist and you can see that the word applies. "Remarkable", on the other hand, is inescapably a value judgment (for example, while the article subject has some unique characteristics, I do not think it is particularly remarkable among Christian sects) and should not be given in WP's NPOV voice but tied to the person whose opinion it is.

One solution I suggested was to put the phrase "remarkable and controversial" in quotes, so as to identify it as someone's opinion rather than as verifiable fact in WP's NPOV voice, but User:JamieBrown2011 has reverted that also. I offer two suggested solutions, 1) use only the verifiable word "controversial" and eschew the opinion word "remarkable", or 2) put the phrase "remarkable and controversial" in quotes, to identify it as someone's opinion. I prefer #1 but am willing to compromise on #2. Please discuss rather than persistently reverting to your preferred version. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Charity to the poor

• This group is known for and has a long history of showing charity to the poor.
  • John, Appel. "Hunger Pains NorthCote". Philanthropist.
  • http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/550
  • http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/1741
  • https://www.hopeww.org/NetCommunity/SSLPage.aspx?pid=1924

I've noticed a lot of controversy at this article, but I haven't had the time to do a complete review of what's going on. Let me instead pick one short sentence which might serve as an example of one of the ways the article should be improved. The sentence asserts that the group is known for charity and that it has a long history of charity. But the sources do not support either assertion. None of the sources assert that the group is known for charity. Instead, they simply list individual charity events. Nor do the sources show evidence of a "long history" of such activities, the earliest event listed having been in 2008. Third, two of the sources are the ICOC website, and the other is not an objective source. We can't really use those as a basis for making assertions like this, even if they did support them directly. Based on these sources, a more reasonable sentence would be something like "The ICOC has held charitable events to raise money for various causes." Speaking generally, it's important that the text summarizes the sources correctly in a neutral fashion, and that ICOC sources are not used for self-serving claims.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Will. I have become concerned that the two primary users currently editing this article are more interested in positively portraying the article subject than in NPOV, and the concern you have just presented is just one example of that. They have accused me of a negative bias against the article subject, but if you look at our records you'll see that both these users have never edited any article other than this one, while I have a record of working towards NPOV on a variety of WP topics. I came across this page recently as I was carrying out a task that took me to most pages connected to the Restoration movement, noticed its unwarranted positive take on an organization that is in fact quite controversial, tried to restore some balance, and ran into difficulties with these users. Conversation has not been much use, and I'm not really sure where to go from here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Will, you hit the nail on the head. I removed that sentence. Arcandam (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That is not actually true. The 3rd reference is a video covering 20 years of charity to the poor. 00nuthinbutthetruth00 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

HOPEww is not the same thing as the ICOC. Please read WP:ABOUTSELF. We need reliable sources independent of the subject. Arcandam (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

When has it ever been proven that the ICOC ever gave money to any organizations outside of the ICOC? Sure there are articles put out by the ICOC that say Hope Worldwide and other ICOC charities do this and that, but that all comes from the ICOC and those organizations are run by the ICOC. When I was a member and leader in the ICOC I was always told that all of our tithes and offerings which are mandatory are given first to pay for ICOC expenses and then for benevolent work done through ICOC's Hope Worldwide. The leaders would show us pictures of lepers in India and Southeast Asia. While I agree that there are lepers in India and Southeast Asia; there was no factual evidence to support ICOC's Hope Worldwide of giving any money and/or resources to those lepers in India or Southeast Asia. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have to do more research but many members of the ICOC have been involved in AmeriCorps. I know several personally. Generally, congregation members contribute to such organizations outside the church directly from what I know. Why involve a middle man if there is no need? The ICOC no longer has a top down structure Qewr4231. You will need to look on a congregational basis if you want to find evidence of giving. For instance, North River has a partnership with a local Family Resource Center in Marietta, GA. North River also facilitates a neighborhood watch and work service weekends for the surrounding neighborhoods although you may be hard pressed to find documentation on it. Marietta Christian Church either runs or has a partnership with a local soup kitchen. I'm sure that Atlanta Metro Christian Church is affiliated with some local outside charities. With a bit of research you could likely find these things. I would find them for you but I am currently only taking a break from homework. Hope did relief work in Haiti after the earthquake by the way. I had friends who went on the hope mission team.

Will, that seems to be a rather fair change. I wouldn't understand why anyone would be unhappy with that. BlueMoonlet, you do seem to have a slight negative bias in my opinion (minute bias is relatively unavoidable though) but based on the comments of yours I've read I would imagine most of your changes would be rather fair. It may just be some of our members getting a tad overzealous or excited. I would imagine that it happens in any movement that has been looked upon largely with negativity by the outside world. I would like to contribute more than opinions on the soundness of articles but I'm afraid I can only offer my opinions and suggestions for directions of research for the time being. 168.28.180.30 (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC) (Brian Selph)

What do individual members of the ICOC being a part of Americorps have to do with any of the ICOC movements? Are you saying that the ICOC supports Americorps?? Does the ICOC give contribution money to Americorps?? I could be attending a church and also volunteering at a homeless shelter. This is not evidence that the church supports the homeless shelter that I volunteer at. Qewr4231 (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Brian Selph wrote: "For instance, North River has a partnership with a local Family Resource Center in Marietta, GA. North River also facilitates a neighborhood watch and work service weekends for the surrounding neighborhoods although you may be hard pressed to find documentation on it. Marietta Christian Church either runs or has a partnership with a local soup kitchen. I'm sure that Atlanta Metro Christian Church is affiliated with some local outside charities. With a bit of research you could likely find these things. I would find them for you but I am currently only taking a break from homework. Hope did relief work in Haiti after the earthquake by the way. I had friends who went on the hope mission team." I don't understand why you can't do the research and find evidence for these things. You brought these things to attention. Also I wasn't talking about churches in Georgia. I was talking about Hope Worldwide and lepers in India and Southeast Asia. Qewr4231 (talk)

File:ICOCHotNewsSmall.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ICOCHotNewsSmall.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Misplaced Pages files missing permission as of 16 January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously compromised POV.

It is exceedingly obvious that this article is being edited by ICOC members.126.209.229.68 (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

True, it needs lots more work to become anything near WP:NPOV. Arcandam (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

The sentence: "This group is known for and has a long history of showing charity to the poor" has 5 references. I am unable to access this webpage, even through archive.org. The rest of the references do not support the claim made in the article. Therefore I am going to remove the unsourced content. Arcandam (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence: "Nearly 2.5 million poor people are served each year through the ICOC volunteers and benevolent partner HOPE Worldwide" had references but they did not support the claim made in the article so I removed it. Arcandam (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit more cleaning. In the expansion section there are two similar sentences: "Once among the fastest-growing religious movements in the country, expansion of the mainline Churches of Christ had stagnated by 1970. The ICOC sought to reverse this." and "Once the fastest-growing Christian movement in the United States, membership growth slowed during the late 1990s. McKean was removed from Leadership in 2002 and Henry Kreite's letter of 2003 sparked internal reform and restructuring. Even so, the ICOC still boasts nearly 100,000 members in 160 nations around the world.". I think one of those sentences should be removed. Arcandam (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Rv by JamieBrown2011

User JamieBrown2011 reverted the cleanup, I would like to invite him to use this space to explain why. Arcandam (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Clean out" might be a better description of what you are doing. But what IS strange is to see what you remove and what you allow to remain. You allow referenced material from students who made presentations in a lecture. These are students taking a R133 class. No comments are made about whether the student passed or failed, did poor research or not. These are hardly reliable sources! Yet after nearly 50 edits on your behalf there they stand: WP:NOTRELIABLE http://web.archive.org/web/20080708035710/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs133/Resources/StudentPapers/present.html You allow a personal newsletter http://cnview.com/index.html WP:V You allow references and material from Rick A Ross even though he has a serious COI because his personal business relies on scaring people into paying him to 'exit counsel' people from churches. He has been convicted of violating peoples civil rights and child abduction and yet you allow his testimony to stand!!! I could go on but I think it is clear that you are NOT editing with a NPOV.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, why don't you help me clean up the unreliable sources? Its quite a lot of work (long article, many low quality sources). Please follow this link and edit the article according to policy. Arcandam (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I googled a bit; are you referring to the Jason Scott case? Scott was eighteen years old at the time of the abduction and thus legally an adult. Ross was acquitted in a January 1994 jury trial. Please explain what you are referring to, but be careful not to accuse people of stuff they did not do. The truth (as described in the Misplaced Pages article) is bad enough (emphasis mine): "The nine-member jury unanimously held the defendants liable for conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. In addition, the jury held that Ross and his associates (but not CAN) "intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." The case resulted in an award of $875,000 in compensatory damages and punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000 against CAN, $2,500,000 against Ross, and $250,000 against each of Ross's two accomplices.". Arcandam (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted that testimony written by an ex-member BTW. Arcandam (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Singapore High Court

In this edit JamieBrown2011 removes some stuff with the editsummary: "References do not say what text is quoted. This is a better NPOV response to the accusation of being a cult" and replaces it with: "A Singapore High Court Ruling however has ruled in favor of the church stating it is "not a cult", and that "it is a stretch of the imagination to think otherwise"<ref name="bentang.tripod.com">http://bentang.tripod.com/central_christian_church.htm</ref>". Tripod.com is a free website host with usergenerated content; anyone can write anything on there. It is not a reliable source. Even if it was a reliable source I would wonder how relevant that is considering the fact that the high court of Singapore is crazy. The interesting thing is that http://bentang.tripod.com/central_christian_church.htm does not contain the phrases "not a cult" and "stretch of the imagination". Arcandam (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't have a chance to read the transcript of the High Court Ruling. The fact that you think the Singapore High Court is crazy is really irrelevant. WP:VNT A small extract follows:

"32.It is apparent that these characteristics listed by Mr Cheong are those associated with the more notorious dangerous, violent and destructive cults that surface in the media from time to time in a dramatic way, such as those led to the Jonestown and Waco tragedies. As we know the facts, the CCC, of course, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be equated with such groups. One can say straight away that CCC is not a commune of half-crazed people living in isolation from the world at large worshipping and kissing the foot of some self-appointed messiah or prophet. Most of its members carry on with their full time jobs just like members of other churches. Its members do not give up their assets to a commune, and its leaders do not live in riches on the backs of its members. It is not a secret organisation run by persons with an agenda which is kept secret from its members. People are welcome to join its meetings and services. In fact it actively tries to get people to attend these meetings and services so that they can see if they wish to join. They are made fully aware of what being a member would involve. People are never deceived or tricked or trapped into joining it. Furthermore, although a member is dissuaded from leaving, if he is bent on leaving, he will not be stopped from doing so. In fact, in the short history of the CCC here in Singapore, the people who have left the group far outnumber the existing members. There has been a constant turnover of members. It certainly does not harass or intimidate ex-members."

If you want more extracts I am happy to oblige. The details of the court case are: SINGAPORE HIGH COURT - SUIT NOs 846 and 848 of 1992 Judges LAI KEW CHAI J Date 29 AUG 1994 Citation 1 SLR 115 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I am trying to find a reliable source online. I hope we can agree that sentencing someone to death for smuggling a bit of marijuana is crazy. Capital punishment in the United States is administered for a wide variety of crimes ranging from drug trafficking to aggravated murder. However, in practice, it is reserved only for homicide-related crimes including aggravated murder, felony murder, and contract killing. Arcandam (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. Nota bene: That extract cannot be used as a source for the claim you made in the article; you are misrepresenting the source. The high court said the CCC cannot by any stretch of the imagination be equated with groups like those responsible for the Jonestown and Waco tragedies.

Yes that is a bit extreme but Singapore is a very controlling and efficiently run society. When I visited there I heard you get a fine for dropping chewing gum on the pavement and graffity is non existent because of the punishments you get for it!JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way Arcandam, I was initially critical of how you were editing the ICOC page but actually looking at it today you have cleaned it up nicely. Good job!

Quick question though, why have you removed all the pictures? One of the complaints on the article was that it had no pictures, can I put them back in appropriate places?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• C-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• C-Class New religious movements articles
• Mid-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles