Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 1

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

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

message: Many people have tried to force a particular perspective on this article. While you may be personally convinced of the righteousness of your views, please understand that this is NOT a pulpit, or a forum for convincing anyone of anything. It is--or rather, needs to become--a straightforward, dispassionate statement of documented, provable facts. Before contributing, please take the time to read WP:NPOV, and understand that these principles will be upheld here. 
In general, here are some tactics you might want to avoid, as they will likely be immediately challenged as clear signposts of POV extremes:
:*Use of Biblical quotations. In talking about the activities of Christians as Christians, it is to be assumed that their actions have a basis in an interpretation of Biblical passages.  However, it is not in the scope of this article to elaborate on particular passages, or their interpretation. Past contributors have tried to "prove" or "disprove" points by inserting what they imagine to be relevant quotations from Scripture, but this is simply adding a layer of interpretation to intrepretation. In almost all cases, this does nothing but make the article less encyclopedic.
:*Extensive evocations of the buzzword "cult". It is fair to report that ex-members of the church are organized and vociferous in their denunciation of the ICoC as a "cult". It is also fair to point out that leaders in the Church of Christ have apologized for their previous use of the word "cult" in reference to the ICoC. However, this is no place to prove or disprove any such allegations, only to document them. 
:*Phraseology meaningless outside of the context of the church. Terminology such as "church plantings in the pure word", or "alive in the spirit" or "reborn in Christ" may be perfectly understandable to you, but they have little meaning to non-Christians, or even Christians outside your particular denomination. 
Thanks! By the way, I have no affliation with this church, or any groups critical of the church. In fact, I have never heard of the ICoC outside of Wikipedia. My sole motivation is to make this article  encyclopedic. I hope you'll join me in this quest.--Pleather 17:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome to the Neutral Zone 

message: This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
<Cut out to keep talk page clean.>
<Cut out to keep talk page clean.>
1.  The theology of the ICC more closely aligns with Fundamentalism than Evangelicalism.
* literal interpretation of the Bible
* proof-texting
* anti-intellectual tendencies
* tends to focus on a <I>spiritual</I> Gospel, rather than dealing with the whole person
Evangelicalism tends to be more holistic, dealing with social justice (like International Justice Missions) and worldwide prostitution problems, humanitarian aid (World Relief, World Vision), homes for the homeless (Habitat for Humanity), and so on, as well as being championing Christ as "the Incarnation of the Triune Godhead."
2.  A cult is defined in terms of either a) theologically, having major aberrant doctrinal problems (e.g., differing with the Nicene Creed) or b) socio-psychologically, as a totalitarian / mind-controlling organization that has financial or recruitment ends and these ends justify whatever means.
The word hairesis is translated sect and is the root of our word, heresy (false teaching).  It is not the same as the word (or meaning) as "cult".
It is my opinion that the ICC is significantly off in Bible interpretation and application.
Is this still a "stub"?  There's lots more here than there is about many, perhaps most, similarly-sized denominations.
Rlquall 12:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Purported cult

message: I think a revaluation of grouping International Churches of Christchurches together and the cult status may be in order. Some churches are almost not recognizable as “Boston Movement” Churches. Others still hold to the traditions of the pre-2003 International Churches of Christ. Those critical (Reveal.org) of the International Churches of Christ are preparing for a review. 
Unfortunately, no real nomenclature has developed to identify the evolving branches. Perhaps this evolution is in too early a stage for fixed titles. 
PSpadaro 16:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grouping of International Churches of Christ Churches 

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

message: I've moved the following links here:
*Disciples Today A subscriber-supported web portal for those who are dedicated to following Jesus in our world today.
*ICC Discussion Forum A free chat where ex-members debate ICOC issues in a mildly moderated forum
<Cut out to keep talk page clean.>
*ICOCInvestigation.com Exposing the Financial Fraud of the International Churches of Christ
*ICOC News Blog A blog of hot topics from ICC DF (above) and other discussion forums, from an ex-member perspective. Also contains numerous links to psychological studies, expose sites and other ICC-related web sites. 
<Cut out to keep talk page clean.>
From the Churches of Christ to the Boston Movement]  by Russell R. Paden.  May 1994 thesis from the University of Kansas. An essential and thoroughgoing analysis and comparison of the history and development of the Church of Christ and its offshoot ICOC or Boston Movement faction, including the characteristics of "historylessness" and "traditionlessness". From the Abstract: "This thesis argues that while the Boston Movement has introduced some practices that are foreign to and have origins outside the Churches of Christ, both bodies remain quite similar in doctrine and attitude. This conclusion is supported through an historical examination of the Churches of Christ and the Boston Movement detailing the forces that have shaped the attitudes and doctrines of both religious bodies."
<Cut out to keep talk page clean.>
If you like to add these back in per Wikipedia:External links, please discuss it here first. 
brenneman(t)(c) 12:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes To External Links 

message: It would be good to have further explanation as to why the list of links were moved to the discussion page. I would like to see that list added back to the article under External Links section. Thanks.
-ma
Hello! This is an abridged extract of relevent points from the link above:
:Acceptable
:#Sites that point out truths about the ICOCs cultic recruiting methods
:#Sites that help former members heal from the damage this cult inflicted on them
:#Official sites.
:#Sites that have been cited or used as references.
:#A book or other text.
:#On multiple POV.
:#High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. 
:May be acceptable
:#Web directories.
I'm not averse to having each link to be added back in discussed with reference to these points.  
Shall we start at the top with "Disciples Today"? brenneman(t)(c) 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Discussion on External Links Moved 

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

message: *[<Cut out to keep talk page clean.> Research Examine Verify Educate Assist Liberate (REVEAL), an organization of former members of the ICOC
**This link contains solely the perspective of former members. (Comment by ma)
**Does not appear to have been updated in over a year:  Recent News.  Other links are more relevent.brenneman(t)(c) 12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Former Members

message: *KipMcKean.com Unofficial information about Kip McKean from an ex-member
**Ok, I'm confused by this one.  This seems to consist mostly of quotes and sermons.  There appears to be one potentially negative section ("1993 Video Report of Kip McKean dodging a CBC TV reporter who asked him about negative experiences of former ICOC members") but I'm on s  l   o   w  dial-up so I'll never know.brenneman(t)(c) 12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of ICOC Fraud

message: <Cut out to keep talk page clean.>
From the Churches of Christ to the Boston Movement] by Russell R. Paden. May 1994 thesis from the University of Kansas. An essential and thoroughgoing analysis and comparison of the history and development of the Church of Christ and its offshoot ICOC or Boston Movement faction, including the characteristics of "historylessness" and "traditionlessness". From the Abstract: "This thesis argues that while the Boston Movement has introduced some practices that are foreign to and have origins outside the Churches of Christ, both bodies remain quite similar in doctrine and attitude. This conclusion is supported through an historical examination of the Churches of Christ and the Boston Movement detailing the forces that have shaped the attitudes and doctrines of both religious bodies."
**Finally, this link is an academic thesis regarding the history of the mainline Church of Christ and its offshoot, the Boston Movement. This history is of interest to both current and former members in understanding the evolution of the ICOC. (Comment by ma)
**Let's be very clear - this is a Master's thesis from a department that does not appear on the website of the university.  I did read it, and it was fascinating, but it does not appear to be up to the standard required on Wikipedia (e.g. was it submitted for peer review, and if so what were the results.) brenneman(t)(c) 12:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic Thesis on ICOC

message: *I hope this is suitable! - brenneman(t)(c) 01:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overall comments

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

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

message: Trying to summarize our positions to date:
<TABLE BORDER CELLPADDING=3>
	<TR><TH>Link</TH>                     <TH>You</TH>  <TH>Me</TH>    <TH>Result</TH> </TR>
	<TR><TH>Unofficial ICOC info</TH>     <TD>In</TD>   <TD>In</TD>   <TD>In</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>Disciples Today</TH>          <TD>In</TD>   <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>?</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>ICC Discussion Forum</TH>     <TD>In</TD>   <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>?</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>ICOC Blog Spot</TH>           <TD>In</TD>   <TD>In</TD>   <TD>In</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>ICOC News</TH>	              <TD>In</TD>   <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>?</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>REVEAL</TH>                   <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>Out</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>KipMcKean.com</TH>	      <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>Out</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>ICOC Investigation</TH>       <TD>In</TD>   <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>?</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>thesis</TH>	              <TD>? </TD>    <TD>? </TD>  <TD>??</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>Total "Ins"</TH>	      <TD>6+?</TD>   <TD>2+?</TD>  <TD>??</TD></TR>
	</TR>
</TABLE>
Well, we're making some progress!
If we change the thesis link to the AOL page you suggested, I'll support that one as well.
Thus, after some old-fashioned horse-trading, I'll propose:
<TABLE BORDER=1 CELLPADDING=3>
	<TR><TH>Link</TH>                     <TH>You</TH>  <TH>Me</TH>   <TH>Result</TH> </TR>
	<TR><TH>Unofficial ICOC info</TH>     <TD>In</TD>   <TD>In</TD>   <TD>In</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>Disciples Today</TH>          <TD>In</TD>   <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>In</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>ICC Discussion Forum</TH>     <TD>In</TD>   <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>Out</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>ICOC Blog Spot</TH>           <TD>In</TD>   <TD>In</TD>   <TD>In</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>ICOC News</TH>	              <TD>In</TD>   <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>In</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>REVEAL</TH>                   <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>Out</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>KipMcKean.com</TH>	      <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>Out</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>ICOC Investigation</TH>       <TD>In</TD>   <TD>Out</TD>  <TD>In</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>Academic Paper AOL Link</TH>	              <TD>In</TD>   <TD>In</TD>   <TD>In</TD></TR>
	<TR><TH>Total "Ins"</TH>	      <TD>7</TD>    <TD>3</TD>    <TD>6</TD></TR>
	</TR>
</TABLE>
You'd be letting four links go I'd be letting four in.  However, it is pretty late at night and I may be delirious.  Which is probably why I've used this crazy table format anyway.
(Please note: thanks go to this page for how to set up tables, blame goes all to me for using them.)
brenneman(t)(c) 14:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me experimenting with tables, just for fun 

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

message: I am the webmaster for two websites about the ICOC.  Kipmckean.com and ICOCinvestigation.com.  
The Kip McKean website is mainly a website using quotes both old and recent and showing that Kip is still preaching the same false techings he started with 20 years ago.  
Most current members of the ICOC are not paying any attention to Kip's recent teachings.  I wanted to give people the opportunity to find out what Kip is currently teaching.  
The 2nd website ICOCinvestigation is a "one-stop" shop for documentation and confirmation of wrong-doings of the ICOC.  Some of these wrong-doings have been confessed by the leadership, some is still hidden, and I'm uncovering it.  
I was a member of the ICOC for 14 years and am now out.  I have a unique persepctive and would like you to consider adding both links to your pages.  Please contact me if you have any other questions.  Thanks!
Jenchambers
*Well. As you can see we've had a bit of debate about whether to include your sites. If not, see above. I'm open to putting ICOC Investigation as a separate link. KipMcKean.com does not work as an ICOC article link, as your site's info is not really about the ICOC itself (especially as the groups have splintered). If there was an article about Kip McKean, I believe the link might fit better over there, perhaps paired with other links that give an alternative perspective.--ma 01:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
**Thank you for your response.  I would ask that you re-consider adding the Kip McKean website to the ICOC information.  Kip invented the ICOC.  When he resigned, many of the churches began floundering and many are just now figuring out how to be a church with Kip's control.  Kip is actively pulling the church back under his control.  Read his most recent articles, and you see that he is putting pressure on ALL of the ICOC churches to join back with him, or be considered a dead, false church.  So I believe Kip is very much still a part of any story about the ICOC churches.  Jenchambers 21:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like you to consider adding links to my websites 

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

message: Is there a way to add some information on the Indianapolis Church of Christ split in 1994? The <Cut out to keep talk page clean.>  
   1. Policy and Doctrine should not be legislated from Los Angeles.
   2. The ICC are not the only ones saved.
   3. Giving should not be under compulsion.
   4. Legalistic system is robbing Christians of joy (ie statistics, special contribution goals)
Hubzilla 08:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indianapolis Church 

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

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

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

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

message: It's clear that for the sake of balance, the advocacy section adds some value to this article. However, the following item is clearly an opinion that is worded as fact and should be either revised, attributed as a quote or removed entirely:
"3. When most of the North American churches have lost a sense of global mission, the ICOC rallied all of their churches in foreign mission work."
What about the Mormons? They have a pretty significant global mission. Same with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Using terms like 'most of' is generally accepted by the Wikipedia community as the use of 'weasel words.' For more information, see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words
Because of these observations, I've tagged this article as NPOV in the hopes that some valiant editor with contextually pertinent knowledge will refine this section/statement.
JustinStroud 17:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out: "the following item is clearly an opinion that is worded as fact..." I too would like to see some valiant editor refine that section. And, I really like that big red banner at the top of the article. LOL! ma 18:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocacy Section 

message: I haven't really seen one single decent thread here about the neutrality of this wiki entry.
Here's my thought. I think that ICOC'ers have deliberately given this site that label to mollify the obvious charge that the ICOC is a cult. 
But let's remember. The ICOC IS considered a cult by almost all groups that classify cults.
While the ICOC would like to say they aren't a cult, there are about a half million former members who feel differently.
__________________________________________________________________________
Neutrality is being questioned because too many things are being posted that are based on opinions of the poster.  POV's are not a credible source that should be allowed to influence information on the entry of the ICOC.  Former members..for the most part...are not capable of giving an unbiased contribution to the article.  I've read several things posted by them in here that are flat out lies which I can only assume were posted out of bitterness they are still holding onto regarding their experience w/ICOC.  This, I admit, is an assumption on my part as I obviously dont know them enough to do anything other than guess at their motives.  They must be reminded that this is THEIR experience..and not allow it to influence the reader to the point that it affects the outlook a Wikipedia reader may take towards the ICOC.
Current members of the ICOC should also stick to reporting just FACTUAL information.  Editing in information towards people like Kip McKean that may come across as negative or hurtful towards him or other former members is wrong.  Dont allow critics of the church provoke you with their comments to the point that you respond with equally incorrect/wrong info.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  You believe what you believe about the ICOC and go about your business.
Everyone get on with their lives for crying out loud.  There are more productive ways to spend your time.GrimGambit 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is neutrality being questioned? 

message: I deleted some of the external link because it has too much slander and lies. I also edited much of the content, because it is obviously anti-ICOC. Missionprophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.11.133.22 (talk • contribs) 
So is ANTI-ICOC content not allowed? Please cite the lies and LIBEL, also be aware the written word cannot be slanderous - instead it would be libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.188.178 (talk • contribs) 
I deleted all of those unrelated external links. Please don't change it back. Missionprophet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.11.133.22 (talk • contribs) 
Who are you to tell people how to change things. I am reviwing it and if I decided to change it I will.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.188.178 (talk • contribs) 
:This article clearly does not conform to Wikipedia's standards of neutral point of view - WP:NPOV.  Mainly it is written from a critic's point of view.  That doesn't mean that you can go through and delete everything negative about the ICOC and removing all links to critical sites.  Everyone needs to work together to craft a neutral article. Deli nk 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has specific rules about how articles are to be written, which newcomers aren't always aware of.  I hope everyone coming here lately takes a few moments to learn about them before making any significant changes.   And just a heads up for everyone, it is considered good etiquette to always sign your posts on talk pages by added for tildes.  Deli nk 22:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: 184--Karl 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Total churches agreeing so far:  296 --TransylvanianKarl 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 334 --TransylvanianKarl 09:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.disciplestoday.com/Headlines/060515_221ChurchesAgreeToUnityPlan.aspx As yet 184  Churches Agree and Commit to Plan for United Cooperation!] 

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

message: Total churches: 256 --Karl 13:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Total churches agreeing so far:  296 --TransylvanianKarl 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 334 --TransylvanianKarl 09:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.disciplestoday.com/Headlines/060523_35MoreChurchesAgreeToUnityPlan.aspx 35 More Churches Commit to Unity Plan!] 

message: Dear 69.235.18.116 -user! 
Why do you deleted my remarks?
In the wikipedia it's call vandalism! Do you know it?
--Karl 07:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear vandal! 

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

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

message: -What was wrong in this?
====New Reformed and progressive International Churches Of Christ are autonomous!====
Why did you deleted this?
„The International Churches of Christ, is an autonomous…church…” and this why did you deleted?: Until May 15, 2006 total 296 Churches agree and Commit to Plan for United Cooperation. - Could you say for me why this sentence is disturb you?   The article have to be topical!
====When the ICOC history begins? ====
"The history of the International Churches of Christ begins in 1979," ?- This is not completely true.
I revised it: „The roots of the International Churches of Christ lie in the Restoration Movement of the 19th century,”
Why did you deleted this?
====Why did you deleted the "stub" and "sectionstub" markers? ====   
This article for a long while stub! Why did you deleted the incomplete sections?   
=====incomplete sections:=====   
======"Church organization and services======    
Sectionstub    
======Congregational autonomy======    
Sectionstub
======Evangelist, Preacher======   
Sectionstub    
======Other Leaders======    
Sectionstub   
    
======HOPE Worldwide relief organization======    
Sectionstub    
======Chemical recovery ministry======    
Sectionstub   
   
Please don't delete this relevant informations about ICOC! This article is very darker than the reality and for a long while isn't neutral. Please don't write back the special pleading edits. " And please help by adding to sectionstubs! --TransylvanianKarl 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minan! ([[69.138.215.17]]) Why did you deleted this? This is vandalism! 

message: This article for a long while stub! Why did you deleted the incomplete sections?   
=====incomplete sections:=====   
======"Church organization and services======    
Sectionstub    
======Congregational autonomy======    
Sectionstub
======Evangelist, Preacher======   
Sectionstub    
======Other Leaders======    
Sectionstub   
    
======HOPE Worldwide relief organization======    
Sectionstub    
======Chemical recovery ministry======    
Sectionstub   
   
Please don't delete this relevant informations about ICOC! This article is very darker than the reality and for a long while isn't neutral. Please don't write back the special pleading edits. " And please help by adding to sectionstubs! --TransylvanianKarl 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why did you deleted the "stub" and "sectionstub" markers? 

message: ======"Church organization and services======    
Sectionstub    
======Congregational autonomy======    
Sectionstub
======Evangelist, Preacher======   
Sectionstub    
======Other Leaders======    
Sectionstub   
    
======HOPE Worldwide relief organization======    
Sectionstub    
======Chemical recovery ministry======    
Sectionstub   
   
Please don't delete this relevant informations about ICOC! This article is very darker than the reality and for a long while isn't neutral. Please don't write back the special pleading edits. " And please help by adding to sectionstubs! --TransylvanianKarl 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: incomplete sections:

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

message: Dear KeithStump!
 
Sorry. But my english is poor. I will translate your opinions! But this is a little bit difficult for me.
Who is my brother? About my persuasion, every religious Christians who believe in Christ is my brother in faith.  God will judge who will go to heaven who will not. Im who is know better what is in ICOC,  because I am that who is living in the ICOC. Okay? --TransylvanianKarl 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brothers in faith 

message: I'm stunned that no one seems to have created a subpage for just the listing of all the congregations. It's a helpful list, but presently throws off the balance of the overall article and makes it far too long from a technology standpoint. Please note: I am not in any way entering into any doctrinal or technical discussions as to which congregations belong on the list. I am only suggesting it's time that a separate page be created for that list.Lawikitejana 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The separate page is complete.:  "List of International Churches of Christ Congregations"! (thanks  to  Rob)! --TransylvanianKarl 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to create a separate page for listing all the congregations 

message: :The separate page is complete.:  "List of International Churches of Christ Congregations"! (thanks  to  Rob)! --TransylvanianKarl 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zen611! I agree whit you! 

message: :Oh, so so familiar.... that unenlightened, authoritarian, ICOC personality style of denial and distraction.... -ma
==== No personal attacks, and personalities!!! ====
::ma and dm! Please read the  "Wikipedia:No personal attacks" -article and please put it in practice. This is basic wikipedia requirement. --TransylvanianKarl 09:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to hell? And other feedbacks is okay here? What is the wikipedia? Chat/discussion forum? Or an encyklopedia? The english wiki is considerably infirm, and damnable! This is same!)--TransylvanianKarl 09:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tranny Karl's changes have been dictatorial. 

message: ::ma and dm! Please read the  "Wikipedia:No personal attacks" -article and please put it in practice. This is basic wikipedia requirement. --TransylvanianKarl 09:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to hell? And other feedbacks is okay here? What is the wikipedia? Chat/discussion forum? Or an encyklopedia? The english wiki is considerably infirm, and damnable! This is same!)--TransylvanianKarl 09:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No personal attacks, and personalities!!! 

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

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

message: I've tagged this article, because it appears to be heavily POV.  The entire 'changes' section seems very biased against 'Kip McKean', with sentences like:
   "The vast majority of churches within the International Churches of Christ have
   not endorsed McKean's plans and few appear to be inclined to do so in the future."
If this first part is true, it needs a source.  The second part probably shouldn't be included at all; it's a subjective evaluation.
   "All of the McKeans' adult children had disassociated themselves from the
   movement. This was not the only issue for the sabbatical, but it was a
   visible 'thorn' in Kip McKean's side."
Again, this type of language seems inappropriate.
   "The official website claims the church had 135,039 members in 434 congregations
   by January of 2003. However, such figures are widely disputed outside of
   International Churches of Christ."
Are they?  How about a source for this?
   "Furthermore, while many members enjoy the freer, less constrictive fellowship,
   many also lament the loss of closeness and constant biblical counseling that
   were a part of the assigned discipling relationships. While a significant
   number of those relationships were perceived as authoritarian and abusive,
   many members also acknowledge some of those relationships were also extremely
   helpful, faith-building and, sometimes, life-saving."
This is either original research or plain speculation.
   "Prior to 2003, the church claimed a divorce rate of 0%."
That's a pretty wild claim to be cited without a source.
   "The International Churches of Christ believe that the doctrine of once saved,
   always saved is flawed and is very easy to see through scriptures like Matthew 24:12-13"
This sentence is clearly inappropriate.
In conclusion -- I've never heard of the ICoC, and it's possible that much of this information is factually accurate; but the article needs to be reworked by someone neutral and knowledgeable, and some sources should be cited. --Xiaphias 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I'm glad to see most of my changes were restored, but the note about vandalism troubles me greatly.
 
You seem to have been calling for a more appropriate version, Xiaphias, but you reverted positive changes and called them vandalism?!? I have knowledge about the subject, and I added references. The Trannyk version is so biased and poorly formatted, it's laughable.
No, I am not neutral, but there is no one with first-hand knowledge who is. The official doctrine of this church (it does exist, does anyone have a copy of the First Principles?) is kept well hidden but thier manipulative ways and methods are well documented.
I will continue to try to make this a higher-quality article that is not slanted in the cheap, transparent way that Tranny K would have it, but with promenant mention of the very relevent controversy and criticism.
Mproy 04:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would my edits from the other day have been reverted??!? 

message: It's been done before, for the scientology article and others.
Tranny K has vandalized my edits in the following ways:
* Removed valid critical references (Boston Globe, Chronicle of Higher Education, etc.)
* Add dozens of propaganda links (from sites directly owned by the church!!!!)
* Added the inappropriate, untrue and obviously biased "all-the-bad-stuff-stopped-when-kip-left" verbiage to any criticism he allowed to remain.
Xiaphias, what happened to you? You obviously recognized that this was barely short of propaganda, then reversed efforts to make it more encylopedic.
Tranny K, if the church has changed so much, why so much deceit and propagandizing? Your efforts do nothing but cast doubt on the idea that the church has chenged at all. Your church has hurt many people, and you have made relentless efforts to cover that up. As has been mentioned before, this is exactly the kind of information control that the church is infamous for and part of the justification for the "cult" label. Your actions speak for themselves.
Mproy 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can we make this factual and then lock it down? 

message: Thanks Mproy!  The reality is that this movement is still in many ways up to its old tricks.  Many of these writers, if they have come  into the ICC in the last decade likely don't even know what their own religious denomination is all about at the core.  Again, if any of you are pro-ICC and want to make a good and truthful article here, quit cutting info from the Church of Christ article
and pasting onto the ICC article.  Embrace the ICC for what it is - a movement that is only about 25 years old.  Realize the fact that the ICC is not a body within the Restoration Movement.  If you want to be part of the Churches of Christ, you'll leave your ICC congregation and identify with a Church of Christ.  True repentence from what the ICC "was," would also mean giving up the cult practices, manipulating, etc. and even returning property that was wrested from Churches of Christ in past years.  In any event, just make an original and truthful article here or get used to EVERY EDIT YOU MAKE IN THIS ARTICLE THAT BEARS ANY RESEMBLANCE TO CHURCHES OF CHRIST BEING REMOVED.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.10.3 (talk • contribs)  18:02, 8 July 2007 
Ah yes, I was going to mention the deceitful "co-opting" of the Church of Christ, too. Thanks Mproy 19:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amen! 

message: A further note on the continued effort to try to imply a link between the ICOC and mainline Churches of Christ ...
The biased contributors have gone out of thier way to downplay the undeniable criticism by sayng it was "some churches within the ICOC" but conversely, if one or two churches reaches out to the CoC and gets anything warmer than a door slammed in their face, the relationship deserves a heading? Nope, this goes away.
Mproy 00:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's either a whole organization or it isn't 

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