Talk:International Churches of Christ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Churches of Christ article.
Article policies
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Images
    1. Any pictures of ICoC churches would be sweet -- we really need an intro photo.
    2. There's a graph I wanted to add, but haven't yet gotten around to it; it's here.
    3. The image of the ICoC hierarchy needs some minor adjustment to make it more easily readable.
Archive
Archives
*Archive 1 (May 2005 —Aug 2007)


Contents

[edit] And now, for something completely different...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] exchange the original version: vandalism

The problem with Xiaphias's version: vandalism. Xiaphias vandalized the original version, he deleted a lot of information and deleted a lot of caracter. This is not okay, because the original version was discussed from 2005 to 2007. Exchange the aricle without, discussion? I dont know of the kind rule in the wikipedia. --TransylvanianKarl 07:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; there is no rule against it. It's commonly done with articles that are in need of major changes; someone makes those major changes to improve the article. Xiaphias' version is so completely and obviously superior to the previous version that no one but a major ICoC partisan could argue otherwise. It's that much better. Any missing information can be added back in piecemeal. Powers T 12:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Before you Edit...

Before you make a fundamental alteration -- that is to say, before you add something controversial or delete something extant -- please post here first and get approval. Not from me, of course, but from any person who cares to give their opinion. Indeed, I'd say that mine would be of the least importance, given my inherit bias to preserve the condition of my witting.

With regard to references -- I'm a stickler for them, as you may have noticed. Some have objected to my midsentence citations ("First he did this,[1] but later this.[2]"); I don't do this with imprudence. If I added citations after a comma or semicolon, it's because the sentence contains two or more separate statements, each requiring verification and each obtained from a different source. Though it looks prettier to move them all till after the period, this makes it substantially more difficult for a reader to access the specific source he's looking for (Wikipedia's a research tool, not a postcard). Also: if you see a fact or statement which you think looks dubious, ask me about it -- I'll show you my source. I used only internet-accessible material, so you should be able to confirm everything for yourself. --Xiaphias 09:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xiaphias! Your ICOC version was'not neutral!

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

Can you support that claim? --Xiaphias 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I will to set out the all problems of your non neutral article version.--TransylvanianKarl 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problems/1

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

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

problems/2

Paid, and unpaid, are not neutral category, this is a hostile vievpont because, the leaders are the servant of members, and they are paid, because they work, and serving the church, the church members, and God. --TransylvanianKarl 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi! I referrred earlier, but you deleted this informations: International Churches of Christ comprise autonomous, non-denominational (New York City Church of Christ 'About us') Christian congregations, an offshoot from the Mainline Churches of Christ. Central Auckland Church of Christ "About us", about the ICOC It is true, the ICOC earlier was a centralized stucture. But in 2002- the all congregations become autonomous. Whithout formally recognized headquarters, councils, or hierarchal church government. see: http://www.aucklandchurch.com/

" The Central Auckland Church of Christ is currently part of the world wide fellowship of the International Churches of Christ. Whilst there is no central leadership functioning anymore "

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

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

[edit] Request for Comment

Note: the stated RFC reason was originally "Is this new version[1] of the article more or less biased/accurate/suitable than the version which it replaced[2]?", but the bot cannot handle exclamation points and equal signs anymore. MessedRocker (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Your version is far, far, superior, to the point that I felt it necessary to revert back to it. It's that much better. The prior state of the article was a mess, absurdly POV, and overflowing with unduly-weighted sources. I commend your effort and hope more people notice this article to help keep POV edits out. Powers T 17:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
There are two versions of this article, both of which could be improved. However, only one has multiple reliable sources - Xiaphas' version. I support the taking of strong action to ensure Xiaphas' version so that readers see this, and it provides the base for improvement. (For the record, I reverted to Xiaphas', but my revert was reversed in less than an hour). Seektruthfromfacts 08:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Xiaphias's version is far superior. These edit wars need to stop, things are out of control. We'd have 3RR going on, but there are anon IP editors in the mix also. I can't wait for an admin to come in here with the ban-hammer soon. Nswinton\talk 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I Don't agree! The problem with Xiaphias's version: vandalism. Xiaphias vandalized the original version, he deleted a lot of information and deleted a lot of caracter. This is not okay, because the original version was discussed from 2005 to 2007. I think when we have two version, have to merge this two. Exchange the aricle without, discussion? I dont know of the kind rule in the wikipedia. --TransylvanianKarl 08:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I started to merge, this two article, but I'm not ready so far, please give mi a little time for this work. Thank you. --TransylvanianKarl 08:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
today I work a lot on merge this two version, I'm not ready so far. But it is very important the NPOV in the whole article, and the criticism section too. Therefore I copied only the neutral sections from the Xiaphas' version criticism section. --TransylvanianKarl 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Users! The "Wikipedia:Requests for comment" don't substitute the minute work and the discussion of sections one by one!!!! --TransylvanianKarl 08:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the partial version

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

[edit] The worst picture about Kip Mc Kean! Why?

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

[edit] Heavy neutrality problem

(problems/4 )

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

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

What's not-neutral about it? The sect is controversial; it's Protestant; it splintered from the mainline. To what do you object? Powers T 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The mainline Church of Christ splintered from Presbyterian church, the Presbyterian church splintered from the Chatolic church. The Presbyterian church is not a sect? And the Mainline COC is not a sect just the ICOC? This is neutral? --TransylvanianKarl 10:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LtPowers, You have to understand what is neutrality!

You asked: "What's not-neutral about it?" My answer: You sad: "the sect", -this is your partial openion. This is the problem. Please use the Neutral point of view -principles. It is have to use every user in the wikipedia. Because this is an enciklopedia. I understand it is hard, and not too easy thinking neutral, but this make a distinction with every other webpage, whither everybody write what he or she want. The Neutral point of view indispensable to enciklopedaiwritting. --TransylvanianKarl 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sect- [n.] (1) A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice. (2) A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination. (3) A faction united by common interests or beliefs.
Where exactly is the problem here? --130.85.194.177 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the ICOC and the Manline COC relationship is Changing (ICOC are open to co-operation to the Mainline COC)

For example:

VBS Unity ICOC / CoC The Omaha Church of Christ (ICOC) and the Southwest Church of Christ (non-instrumental CoC) have teamed up for their Vacation Bible School (VBS).--TransylvanianKarl 10:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what is not controversial today in this world?

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

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

[edit] The ICOC are changed

The ICOC changed after 2002 - when Kip Mckean had to resigned. And the ICOC churches are free autonomus churches, the teaching, and the practice is changed. -cut this section- TransylvanianKarl 10:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Karl, I appreciate your efforts to improve this article, and I realize English is not your primary language, but your comments are nearly impenetrable. I can't respond to your comments because I don't understand them. Powers T 15:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

  1. "There is a reformist group that has taken heed to Henry Kriete and others, who are actively trying to make things better and change. They recognize a number of problems."
  2. "There is a moderate group that, while they recognize that reform is necessary"
  3. "There is a conservative or traditionalist group"
"As a side note: Within the ICOC, there is a current push to have churches sign up for the "Unity Plan". This plan is in no way connected to the churches deciding to follow Kip's teachings." -by Kip McKean.com, criticism site

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

[edit] Constant reversions

IP users keep revering this page back to the clearly inferior version prior to Xiaphias' edits, with NO explanation and NO attempt at discussion here. It's one thing to do so while making cogent arguments and actually collaborating with other editors; it's another thing entirely to do so without comment. Until someone attempts to justify reverting back to the pre-Xiaphias version, I see no reason to allow it to stand. Powers T 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since no one has bothered to come here to discuss this issue, I'll just assume any further reversions to the pre-Xiaphias version to be vandalism. Someone who was not a vandal would actual come here and discuss the issue. Powers T 23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classification - big mistake

The ICOC Is not Protestant! It is mistake. The ICOC like the COC is Restorationist see also: Restoration Movement. --TransylvanianKarl 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Karl, use [[internal links]] to link to pages on Wikipedia, please. And also, if the ICoC is indeed Restorationist, then I'm sure you can find a reliable source that says so. Then, you can make the change to the article. That's how things work here. Powers T 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding references, Karl. Unfortunately, you're adding them to the inferior version prior to Xiaphias' changes, which means they get lost when I revert back to Xiaphias' version. Can you add them to the better version of the article instead? Powers T 11:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LtPowers's vandalism again

LtPowers!

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

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


[edit] Who is an idiot in an encyklopedia? Minan's personal attack again /2

Minan! Wikipedia:No personal attacks please!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.99.103 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted sections:

[edit] 1. Alternate meanings

Why did you deleted this?

Alternate meanings: International Churches of Christ discussed in this article are not part of Kip Mckean's Portland International Church of Christ (Portland Movement or International Christian Churches ), the "Churches of Christ", Independent Christian Churches, the Disciples of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United Church of Christ, Church of Christ, Scientist, any Church of Christ within the Latter Day Saint movement, the Churches of Christ in Australia; the Fellowship of Churches of Christ in the United Kingdom; the Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand; or the Philippines-based Iglesia ni Cristo.

[edit] 2. Why did you deleted references from the infobox?

area = global (159 nations) icocinfo.org

congregations = 543 (2005) icocinfo.org - Congregations

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

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

[edit] 3. Why did you deleted this referred sections and Why did you deleted this references from the article?

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

Why did you deleted this referred sections about Origins?

[edit] 4.Why did you deleted this referred sections about the roots of ICOC?

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

[edit] 5.Why did you deleted this minimal informations about relationship between the ICOC and the Mainline Church of Christ?

The approximate number of a cappella Churches of Christ comprise about 2,000,000 members in over 40,000 individual congregations worldwide. Churches of Christ Zip Statistical Summary

This website needs an objective investigative reporter.

Church members have a doctored history of the movement and cannot be accurate. Ex-members are bitter and will not be completely fair handling the truth. The ICOC's history is very protected because its past is full of shady rumors.

[edit] 6.Why did you deleted this referred sections about HOPE Worldwide?

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

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

[edit] 7.Why did you deleted this referred sections about Congregational Leadership?

Church government is congregational, rather than denominational. Elders in some cases, or where there are not elders, Evangelists, with the assistance of leading men of the congregation, are seen as the spiritual leaders of the congregation.

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

[edit] 8.Why did you deleted this referred sections about Evangelist, Preacher?

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

[edit] 9.Why did you deleted this referred sections about Chemical Recovery Ministry?

The goal of the Chemical Recovery ministry is to help the addict have a hope and a future. Chemical Recovery Ministry

[edit] 10.Why did you deleted this referred sections about Congregational autonomy?

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

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

[edit] 12.Why did you deleted this sections about the Indianapolis Church of Christ

- The first major challenge of the International Churches of Christ leadership occurred in 1994, when Ed Powers, evangelist for the Indianapolis Church of Christ, openly questioned several of the more controversial aspects of the International Churches of Christ, including mandated giving and the exclusivity doctrine of salvation. The Indianapolis Church of Christ was surpassing 1,000 in attendance at that time and was a major congregation in the Midwest region of the United States. In a special meeting of the congregation, Ed Powers challenged several of the International Churches of Christ -enforced practices which he identified as quenching the joy and spiritual health of the members of the congregation. Upon learning of this special meeting, leaders from across the United States, including Kip McKean, flew into Indianapolis and effectively split the church. As a result, there were now two congregations in Indianapolis: the newly formed Indianapolis International Church of Christ and the now-estranged and renamed Circle City Church. Ed Powers later retired from the ministry of the Circle City Church and Keith Bradbury became evangelist for the congregation." Steve Cannon currently oversees the Indianapolis International Church of Christ.

[edit] 13.Why did you deleted this referred sections about Changes in the International Churches of Christ

In early 2001, some of the World Sector Leaders (Regional Evangelists directing geographic areas of churches) began to question the effectiveness of the present leadership structure as well as the qualifications of Kip and Elena McKean to continue in their global leadership role. By September, the issue had reached a head in which the majority of World Sector Leaders agreed that significant changes were necessary. In November 2001, the McKeans announced that they were stepping down from leading the Los Angeles Church of Christ in order to take a sabbatical for an unspecified amount of time in order to focus on "marriage and family issues." All of the McKeans' adult children had disassociated themselves from the movement. This was not the only issue for the sabbatical, but it was a visible "thorn" in Kip McKean's side.

At this time, the International Churches of Christ administration, under the leadership of Andy Fleming (former missionary to Scandinavia and the Soviet Union), began to formulate a plan for a massive reduction in the overhead of the worldwide organization. The goal of this administrative plan was to refocus the resources of the local congregations on building up their own ministries as well as guaranteeing continued 'goodwill' in future missions contributions. By the end of 2002, the overhead had been reduced by 67%, and Fleming resigned as the Chairman of the Board.

[edit] 14.Why did you deleted this referred sections aboutKip McKean's resignation

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

This is about kip's resignation.-bangel92

[edit] 15.Why did you deleted the interwiki links?

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

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

[edit] Deleted sections without discussion: Vandalism again

User Seektruthfromfacts! Why did you deleted this section about Several ICOC sites, and why did you deleted the interwiki links?

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

[edit] reliable sources!!!

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Please don't use non-existent inside link in the article

User Nswinton!

Please don't put back this deleted inside link:

For a complete list of alternative names, see Lists relating to the ICoC.

-This article we discussed, and deleted. --TransylvanianKarl 12:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section headings

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

[edit] Information box

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

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

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

129.59.8.10 09:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Request for Mediation

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

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

[edit] Minan's personal attack again /3

Minan! Wikipedia:No personal attacks please!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.99.103 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Revisions

I've begun to re-enact some revisions to increase the readability, verifiability, accuracy, and objectivity of this article. The last time I tried to do some rewrites, I hit a roadblock when a determined and POV-pushing editor objected to the changes; I've waited a while, so hopefully that's died off. If anyone who isn't an ICoC-lover or an ICoC-hater has some new objection, let me know. If you belong to one of these groups, please use your discretion with reverts and edits; try to discuss edits before hand, or at least rationalize them afterwards, and cite objective and reliable sources as much as possible (citing ICOC-loving or -hating groups isn't particularly helpful).
Cheers! --Xiaphias (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Powers T 02:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure ; )
So, as I reworked the 'Institutional Description' section today I had to remove this sentence:
"In light of the 2003 events, many churches have reevaluated what the Bible says about discipling and this is the reason that it is a choice of the individual as to who their disciplship partner is."
Anyone have some source for post-'03 changes? I didn't find any, but with a reference this info would certainly merit inclusion. --Xiaphias (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes since 2003

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

[edit] Cut out. NPOV!

This is NPOV! "is a controversial Protestant sect which splintered from the mainline Churches of Christ" This is a non neutral sentence! The neutrality is not an option in the wikipedia! --TransylvanianKarl (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC) NPOV! Xiaphias! please read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view-article, and please be neutral!--TransylvanianKarl (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] NPOV Problems again

  • "is a controversial " ...in somebody's opinion... ...in some group's or other religious group's opinion...
  • "splintered from the mainline Churches of Christ" ...in somebody's opinion... ...in some group's or other religious group's opinion...
  • " its aggressive recruitment tactics" ...in somebody's opinion... ...in some group's or other religious group's opinion...
  • "Founder Kip McKean " ...in somebody's opinion... ...in some group's or other religious group's opinion...
  • "Origin 1979 June 1 " ...in somebody's opinion... ...in some group's or other religious group's opinion...

etc......etc......etc...... --TransylvanianKarl (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to actually spell out some of your concerns. However, I'm afraid you're going to have to provide a bit more explanation, because to me these things do not appear to be non-NPOV problems. All of these things that you mention as "somebody's opinion" are actually quite objective (with the possible exception of the wording of "aggressive recruitment tactics", which although one of the defining characteristics of the early ICOC, can probably be worded a bit more neutrally, such as a "focus on evangelism" or something like that). I think you'll have a hard time arguing that the ICOC didn't splinter from the mainline Churches of Christ, or that Kip McKean wasn't the first central authority and principal spiritual leader, and therefore founder of the ICOC. Or that the ICOC doesn't trace it's own origin to June 1, 1979. Deli nk (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As Deli nk noted, four of those five items are not matters of opinion at all, but rather objective facts. Those facts may be true or false, but, like all facts, are one or the other. If you have strong, reliable evidence that those items are not true, provide it. If you cannot provide such evidence, then you have no legitimate grounds for objection. Powers T 20:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edit

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

[edit] No controversy?

It's a bit ridiculous that there's no mention of controversy in this article. Why not? [4] for example gives lots and lots of citations of controversy. (Rick Ross himself may have his own POV on the issue, but he cites real independent news sources.) One of the most notable things about the ICoC is its controversy and the allegations that it's a cult (that's the only reason why I've heard of them). Of course we won't be POV about it, but it's silly not to mention it at all. Staecker (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I agree. Now if only someone will edit it... --24.192.136.238 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Load up the horses sources, boys. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sally Anne's vandalism ( Please don't cut the longer version )

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

--TransylvanianKarl (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Request for Arbitration

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

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

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

[edit] Who is the founder of the ICOC?

Kip McKean is the founder of ICOC? Why? The ICOC isn't branched from the Mainline Churches of Christ? McKean just was one influential leader, not "the founder". --TransylvanianKarl (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, remove the "founder" field from the infobox. To say that Jesus is the founder is blatant POV, since this assumes the accuracy of the ICoC's claim that they are the "original church". Staecker (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
McKean's the founder because he's the one that did the 'branching'. It's the same with Martin Luther, who founded Lutheranism by separating from Catholicism.--Xiaphias (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] WHAT CERTIFIES 'FOUNDING'?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Small edit regarding Elitist Behavior

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