Jump to content

Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 12

JamieBrown2011

I can not find the specific post; however, I do remember asking JamieBrown2011 who is a credible source on the ICOC and he did say that he himself is a credible source on the ICOC. Going further he has said that I should not be allowed to edit the ICOC article because my point of view on the ICOC is negative. Well, by that own standard, JamieBrown2011 should not be allowed to edit the ICOC article because he is no neutral. His view of the ICOC is positive and he wants to get rid of all negative facts from the ICOC article. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Qewr4231, you must have me confused with someone else. I have never claimed to be "a reliable source on the ICOC". What we do here at Wikipedia is "reference reliable sources." Unfortunately a lot of the material you are trying to insert comes from Self Published sources, or websites that have no editorial board and no evidence of fact checking, which makes them unreliable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Even if you agree with the POV of the articles you are referencing if they are unreliable they are excluded from Wikipedia. You can read WP:RS to gain more clarity. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Obfuscation of fair-balance statements

I had added a fair balance statement about HOPE Worldwide with reference support from an objective, reputable source. Shortly thereafter, I noted that edits were made to my statement to both obfuscate the fair contents (ie. by inappropriately placing the information in a set of bullets to which it did not belong) and to remove the fair-balance phraseology of the added statement. I am a professional writer in an industry in which fair balance is a paramount requirement. Attempts to reverse my honorable and objective work are both egregious and deceitful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.142.33 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the article. If read some Wikipedia policies it will help you understand why some of your edits will be modified. MOS:OPED JamieBrown2011 (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Additional information will be included from the source for a more objective treatment of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.142.33 (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, you keep deleting a portion from the article page on this topic citing MOS:OPED concerns. But it's not clear to me why you think that it violates MOS:OPED. OPED is concerned with editorializing, using fuzzy words like 'notably', 'interesting', etc. There's nothing in the portion you deleted that's banned by OPED. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

When reading the Charity Navigator link last year, it made no mention of being "lowest in category" etc... so when that is added in this Wiki article it violates MOS:OPED. I tried to recheck if something has changed since last viewing it and they seemed to have removed their reference to HOPEww (unless there is just a temporary problem with their website.) If it doesn't resolve itself soon, we will need to remove their section as it would be unsourced material. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, it was a temporary problem with their website. As I mentioned there is none of those "evaluative statements" in the link mentioned. There is a sampling of charities doing similar work but no ranking of all the charities in their category. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Identifying Criticisms and Changes in the Movement Over Time

I'm starting this section to give us a fresh start on the discussion of how best to incorporate criticisms into the article. As discussed above, I believe we need to:

  • Identify all of the major criticisms of the ICoC (whether we agree with them or not);
  • Identify the primary response to each (whether we agree with it or not);
  • Identify significant changes in belief, practice or culture;
  • Identify the 2 to 3 best sources for each of the above.

To begin discussion of the list, some of the primary areas of criticism have been:

  1. Abuses related to "discipling" practices;
  2. Overly authoritarian leadership structure;
  3. Theologicial exclusivism (belief that they are the only true christians and rebaptism);
  4. Cultivating a degree of control and conformity that amounts to "cultism"; and
  5. Soteriological beliefs that are inconsistent with historical Protestant theology (e.g., baptismal regeneration).

Are there any other significant criticisms that do not fall into one of the above buckets?

Now, for the other side. Kim McKean was associated with both the development and leadership of the ICoC for many years, and appears to have been outspoken advocate for the approach to discipling and to have promoted the sense of exclusivism. We know that he has separated from the ICoC, and that at least some others in the ICoC criticized his leadership and approach. Beyond the leadership changes, is anyone aware of reliable sources that discuss changes in beliefs, practices or culture since McKean left?

As we go through this exercise, we need to recognize that this group has been subject to an unusual level of criticism. That's not to say that the criticisms are necessarily correct, that they should be the primary focus of the article, or that the ICoC hasn't changed. But the ICoC has seen more controversy in recent decades than many other religious groups. EastTN (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a new section, EastTN. I can think of a few more criticisms, namely: the Yeakley research and the ICOC's evangelism on college campuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nietzsche123 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I took a few minutes to compile what's meant as merely a cursory list of sources for the criticisms EastTN described above.
  • The following seem to support (3), Theologicial exclusivism (belief that they are the only true christians and rebaptism): (A) Bjornstad, James (1993).
  • The following seem to support (5), Soteriological beliefs that are inconsistent with historical Protestant theology: (A) Bjornstad, James (1993).
  • The following seem to support (6), controversial college recruitment tactics: (A) "A Push Becomes A Shove". US News and World Report., (B) "Church Growth: The Cost of Discipleship?-". Christianity Today., and (C) Paulson, Michael (2001). "Campuses ban alleged church cult". The Boston Globe.
As far as ICOC responses to criticism go, I make the following cursory suggestions below.
  • It may be best to repeat the ICOC's stance on its own doctrine in response to (3), Theologicial exclusivism (belief that they are the only true christians and rebaptism) (as we did previously).
  • It may also be best to use some of the same articles cited to support (2), Overly authoritarian leadership structure and (6), controversial college recruitment tactics, namely: "Church Growth: The Cost of Discipleship?-". Christianity Today. and "A Push Becomes A Shove". US News and World Report. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of the Yeakley research as falling under #4. EastTN (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. In that case, I would just add Yeakley's The Discipling Dilemma to the sources I provided for (4). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
That would make sense to me. I'll try to spend some time over the next week or so to see what I can find in the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement on both criticisms and responses. It's a standard source for groups that grew out of the Restoration Movement. Unfortunately, I believe it was written before McKean left the ICoC, so it won't cover any subsequent changes. That's where we seem to have the biggest gap. EastTN (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking at your list of sources (thank you for pulling it together). For some reason, the CSJ and Bjornstad seem to be especially problematic for some editors. I don't see how Christianity Today, U.S. News and World Report or the Boston Globe could be seen as anything other than reliable. Yeakley also seems solid to me. I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement speaks to exclusivism. What would you think about dropping Bjornstad as a way of moving forward? I believe we can cover all of the signifianct criticisms without relying on him. EastTN (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
EastTN, I took off the last month or so from WP editing; but now I'm back. Thank you for continuing to work hard on trying to improve the objectivity of this article. I'm not sure that I see a valid reason to exclude references to CSJ from WP: CSJ is a third-party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That said, if the sources you mentioned cover the same ground the CSJ articles do--that is, no relevant criticisms of the ICOC are explicated by CSJ alone, I don't have a problem with using the less controversial sources instead. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I've found a masters thesis that may be useful. It's relatively recent, academic in tone, and goes back and focuses on the underlying causes when the then "Boston Movement" separated from the churches of Christ (Petter, Ronald James Francis, The Role of the Restoration Hermeneutic in the Fractures of the Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 2009). Interestingly, it identifies "the re-baptism of mainline Church of Christ members who placed membership in the Boston movement churches" as the most significant factor in the break between the two groups. EastTN (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice find! I'll give it a looking over in the next couple of days. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

When I was a member in the ICOC (5 years), the leaders told us that since God has entrusted the ICOC leaders with the welfare and common good of the ICOC members, disobeying ICOC leaders is a sin.

Also the ICOC claims to be the "one true church" and that all members of churches other than the ICOC are unsaved.

And finally, we had sin confession meetings. Each house church would get together once a week to confess sins in front of the entire membership of the house church. After confessing our sins, we would get counsel, advice, rebukes, and punishment from the rest of the house church. Qewr4231 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Qewr4231, do you have any specific sources that you would recommend? Given the controversial nature of any religious subject, we need to find the best sources we can. EastTN (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
EastTN News reports about the International Churches of Christ being a cult:

ABC News: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/2020.wmv

Inside Edition: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/InsideEditionSmall.wmv

Fox Files: http://www.icocinvestigation.com/audio/FoxFilesSmall.wmv

Qewr4231 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

EastTN Other videos that talk about the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) being a cult. Again I offer these videos as proof that people are criticizing the ICOC, calling the ICOC a cult, and that there is controversy.

THE "INTERNATIONAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST" ALIAS "THE BOSTON MOVEMENT #1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUHNAcvTBBA&feature=youtu.be

Visions and Dreams" A brief history of the International Churches of Christ: http://vimeo.com/71606023

Inside Edition (http://www.insideedition.com/) Investigates: Is the International Churches of Christ a Cult? - ICOC - NYCOC (1994): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywU5PsZs-9U&feature=youtu.be

Is the International Church of Christ a Cult? Boston News Report What Hasn't Changed in the ICOC 1998 (WCVB-TV, channel 5, is a television station located in Boston, Massachusetts, United States that serves as an affiliate of the ABC television network. It is the flagship television station of Hearst Television, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hearst Corporation. WCVB-TV's studios and transmitter are co-located in Needham, Massachusetts. WCVB is also one of six Boston television stations that are carried by Canadian satellite provider Bell TV.): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNPUoKMqYQ0&feature=youtu.be

International Church of Christ | CBC Report | Is the ICOC a Multi-level Marketing Organisation? (CBC News is the division of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation responsible for the news gathering and production of news programs on CBC Television, Radio and online services. CBC News is the largest news broadcaster in Canada with local, regional and national broadcasts and stations.): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7MdnavPmkw&feature=youtu.be

Qewr4231 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Church%20of%20Christ/icoc.htm International Churches of Christ EXPOSED! By David J. Stewart Qewr4231 (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cultwatch.com/icc.html The International Church of Christ (ICOC) Qewr4231 (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

http://carm.org/what-international-church-christ What is the International Church of Christ? by Matt Slick Qewr4231 (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbnew.aspx?pageid=8589952668 International Churches of Christ By Tal Davis Qewr4231 (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/02/10/international-churches-of-christ-a-personal-story-of-control/ The Wartburg Watch 2013 Qewr4231 (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.gotquestions.org/International-Church-of-Christ.html What is the International Church of Christ (ICOC), and what do they believe? by S. Michael Houdmann Qewr4231 (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Qewr4231, I see you have done an incredible amount of research in putting these references together, great job. I think what we need to do as a group now is go through each of them and see what can be used in the main article and what doesn't meet Wikipedia policies. I have gone through each of the references and will provide my feedback on whether these are relevant or not. Sandelk (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

- http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Church%20of%20Christ/icoc.htm

I think this is quite a detailed article, my concern is that it is trying to argue against the doctrine of the ICOC and not focused on detailing the history of it, which I feel is not relevant to the needs of the article. I'm interested to hear your views on this article.

http://carm.org/what-international-church-christ http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/02/10/international-churches-of-christ-a-personal-story-of-control/ http://www.gotquestions.org/International-Church-of-Christ.html

These resources appear to be self-published, which is against the WP:SELFSOURCE rule. I do agree that this can be difficult to determine based on the overall content on some of these sites.

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbnew.aspx?pageid=8589952668

I like the historical viewpoint of this resource and it definitely provides a more balanced view than the rest. It also cites official ICOC webpages, which is fantastic. The history of the movement however is only until 2003 (as with most resources unfortunately) and even the references the website uses from the official www.icoc.org site, are no longer in existence and therefore verifiable.

http://www.cultwatch.com/icc.html

This is a resource that has been mentioned before and unfortunately break the WP:BIAS rule, as it is deliberately trying to find negative aspects to the organizations it lists on the site.Sandelk (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)41.174.38.104 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, I think great effort has gone into finishing these references and we definitely need to find additional references which speak provide account of the movement post 2003. However, I do think we need to resist using these above references in the main article, as I'm not sure they meet WP policy effectively. Sandelk (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Editorial "clean up" of talk page

An editor who apparently didnt know that you should not remove others' comments from an article talk page blanked several sections. I restored all of the content, but then followed the apparent wishes of the initial editor and re-blanked the sections where they were the only contributor.

Please see Wikipedia:TPG#When_to_condense_pages and WP:ARCHIVE as well as Template:Collapse and Template:Archive top for standard options and tools to maintain the talk page on discussions that have come to a conclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it is important for editors of the Wikipedia entry on the ICOC to state on the ICOC talk page whether they are current ICOC members, former ICOC members, or have no affiliation with the ICOC because this will skew the neutrality of the ICOC Wikipedia entry.

I think it is important for editors of the Wikipedia entry on the ICOC to state on the ICOC talk page whether they are current ICOC members, former ICOC members, or have no affiliation with the ICOC because this will skew the neutrality of the ICOC Wikipedia entry. I think some of the editors here are current ICOC members and are pretending to be neutral editors in order to make the Wikipedia ICOC page rosy and appealing aka an evangelism tool. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no WP policy for this request.JamesLappeman (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if the ICOC public relations people would stop trying to make the ICOC wikipedia page into an evangelism tool for the ICOC.Qewr4231 (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Because so many current ICOC members have edited the ICOC wikipedia page the page is highly skewed and not telling the complete truth about the ICOC. TransylvanianKarl and JamieBrown2011 are current members of the ICOC so their neutrality is in question. Some of the other editors of the ICOC wikipedia page are also current ICOC members. Their neutrality is questioned as well. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

JamesLappeman is correct, and it is quite obvious to any observer that the relentless focus of the editors involved in this article that they all have WP:COI on one side or the other.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with JamesLappeman that this is not WP policy and also would put the focus of each persons points as [WP:COI] and not on the merits of the points being made.Sandelk (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey absolutely. JamesLappeman doesn't have a WP:NPOV and might also be WP:COI. I also think that JamieBrown2011 doesn't have a WP:NPOV and might also be WP:COI. I certainly don't have a WP:NPOV on the ICOC. I want the truth to be told. There are many critics of the ICOC and then there is the Henry Kriete letter and all of the abuses that took place in the ICOC. I fear that Nietzsche123 may not have a WP:NPOV, but at least he is trying to keep the article honest. My fear is that some of the editors here want to use the Wikipedia ICOC page as an advertisement to advance the ICOC and not necessarily to add to Wikipedia or enhance Wikipedia. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Marilyn Kriete

Marilyn and Henry Kriete are the authors of the Henry Kriete letter that exposed a lot of abuse in the International Churches of Christ. Marilyn talks about the Henry Kriete letter on her new website: www.purplesplashofglory.com

Qewr4231 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter.

JamieBrown2011, you reverted my insertion of information about the Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter because you said the source I used was not valid. The source I used were Henry and Marilyn themselves on their own website: http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/

This is Marilyn and Henry Kriete's continuing nine part series on the letter that they wrote in their own words. Henry and Marilyn Kriete are the most valid source on the letter that they wrote.

" 07:28, 23 January 2014‎ JamieBrown2011 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,327 bytes) (-2,467)‎ . . (Removed material from Self Published sources. Will try and find RS for the Henry Kreite letter and discuss on Talk Page before including)"

This revert makes me think that (1) you didn't even check the source I used or (2) you are trying to keep any criticism of the ICOC out of the main article.

I quote from WP:RS

"Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: 

           the piece of work itself (the article, book);
           the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
           and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University  Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

WP:RS says that a credible source is "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)." The source I used was Henry and Marilyn Kriete's own website Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/). Further I sighted the exact source that the material came from: Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/). This is a nine part series written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete, on their own website; however you called what WP:RS calls a reliable source, unreliable.

Qewr4231 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Every time I tried to add a section about the Kriete's letter to the ICOC Wikipedia page, JamieBrown2011 reverted the edits even though the source was sound and did not violate WP:RS. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits on the ICoC article over the past 24 hours have been disruptive and you have broken the 3RR. You will be reported.

JamieBrown2011, you have broken/violated the WP:3RR rule which states:

"The three-revert rule Shortcut: 

   WP:3RR

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block.

The three-revert rule states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. See below for exemptions.

A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake."

JamieBrown2011 reverted my edit many times in about 30 minutes. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note that users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Qewr4231 (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Qewr4231, I didn't actually violate the 3RR, if you check the page history carefully. However, you are linking material into the page that comes from someone's personal blog. WP generally does not accept personal blogs as WP:RS, please read: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. I hope that helps you understand.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@JamieBrown2011 are you saying that Henry and Marilyn Kriete are not the best source on the Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter that they themselves wrote? I hope you understand that Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter and that Henry and Marilyn Kriete are the best source for the letter than they themselves wrote. The information that I inserted came directly from Henry and Marilyn Kriete themselves via their own website. Qewr4231 (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
@JamieBrown2011 I used a reliable source. Just learn to accept it. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.

Again, let me ask you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.

Again let me point something out to you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Singapore High Court Ruling Section Not Needed

I fail to see what the Singapore High Court Ruling section has to do with the International Churches of Christ's theology, doctrine, and worship practices. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The court ruling is about the ICOC Singapore congregation. Just because you do not agree with the Courts ruling doesn't make it irrelevant. Deleting longstanding sourced content continuously in a 24 hour period will result in you being reported to the 3RR notice board. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, the only reason that I have ever violated the 3RR rule is because you constantly reverse any edits or changes that I make to the International Churches of Christ article. JamieBrown2011 you constantly violate the 3RR rule. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps an explanation and discussion of Singapore law would be in order to help us understand why the Singapore court ruled in the ways that it did. I am not an expert on Singapore laws. A simple Internet search brings up the following Singapore laws:

1. It is against the law and a public caning offense to not flush the toilet after using it. 2. You Litter You Pay-Big Time. 3. Chewing gum sales forbidden. 4. Don’t walk around your house naked. 5. No hugging without permission. 6. No poking adverse comments at religion. 7. Crooks go to jail. Of course they do, it’s common sense, but here’s something weird to think of. Apparently, if you’re introducing a stranger as your good friend, speak well of him and it proves to be false, you’ll be convicted for abetment. Watch out who you endorse as you can’t fool these guys! 8. Connecting on unsecured Wi-Fi hotspots means hacking. http://www.hotelclub.com/blog/singapore-weird-laws/

Do not spit anywhere. Along with throwing cigarette butts on the street, spitting is banned in Singapore. As with similar prohibitions, these laws are in place to maintain Singapore's reputation for cleanliness. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/absurd-laws-of-singapore-2012-6#ixzz31dmcg400

Gay sex is illegal and comes with a two-year jail term. Sexual relationships between two members of the same gender are forbidden in Singapore, although the law is not nearly as strictly enforced as some of the other laws on this list. Formerly, oral sex was also illegal until the ban was lifted in 2007. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/absurd-laws-of-singapore-2012-6#ixzz31dmobOKU

Question: Does Singapore law, which seems to be radically different than laws in the USA, constitute world wide approval and acceptance of the ICOC as a regular church? Am I supposed to infer that, since Singapore law allows the ICOC to operate and function in Singapore, that the ICOC is accepted anywhere and everywhere? Am I supposed to infer that, since Sinapore law deemed the ICOC to not be a cult, that the ICOC isn't a cult? That's what the "Singapore High Court Ruling" section is wanting people to believe. That section wants people to believe that, since the Singapore courts deemed the ICOC to not be a cult, that the ICOC is not a cult. That's a big inference there. Singapore law is not the law around the world; only in Singapore. The only reason that this section is included in the Wikipedia article, in my opinion, is to try to prove that the ICOC is not a cult and to make the ICOC look good, benevolent, and normal.

Qewr4231 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Bjornstad

JamieBrown2011 has repeatedly taken out content sourced to James Bjornstad that he finds objectionable. (Bjornstad, James (1993). "At what Price Success?: The Boston (Church of Christ) Movement". Christian Research Institute.) His explanation is "Even though he may be a professor his site CRI is in effect a WP:SPS, there is no editorial board and no evidence of fact checking required for Wikipedia." The content is not in the voice of Wikipedia but is specifically attributed to the author, we link directly to the full article by Bjornstad, the subject is within his academic specialty (Philosophy and Religion), and CRI is not "his site." The article was published by the Christian Research Institute. This organization has been around for quite a while, is not focused exclusively on the ICoC, and is not exclusively an outlet for Bjornstad's views. JammieBrown2011 argues that appearing on the CRI site makes the article essentially self-published, which seems unjustified to me. Mr. Bjornstad is not just another internet crank, and he didn't publish on his own site or on a random weblog. Excluding this material for the reasons stated appears to me to unjustifiably set a much higher bar for this source is typical for the rest of the article, or is typical for Wikipedia. EastTN (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@EastTN, on Wikipedia Reliable Sources need to have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". CRI has no editorial board. It is essentially a one-man-show. So my objections are two-fold: You have already inserted the same material about "re- baptisms" into the ICOC article from a far more reliable source, there is no need to repeat from a lower quality source. 2ndly, you have edited the Churches of Christ Wikipedia page Extensively and yet never sought to include Bjornstad's articles on the church of Christ on that page. Why is he not regarded as a source for the CoC but you deem him a Reliable source on the ICOC? His articles on the CoC are here [1]. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been on here in a while. Saw there was some activity and decided to weigh in. A cursory look at http://www.equip.org/article/at-what-price-success-the-boston-church-of-christ-movement/#christian-books-2 should make it clear to any serious wiki editor that CRI is hardly a robust source. The ICOC page is looking way better than it did a year ago (credit to you all) and starting to litter it with poor WP:SOURCES is a pity. Just because the words 'publish' and 'research' and 'institute' are used, it does not make CRI more than a personal website/blog. EastTN Why the desire to include CRI? JamesLappeman (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
JamieBrown2011, I don't recall ever arguing that Bjornstad isn't a reliable source. It's natural that different articles will have different sources, depending on what's available for each topic. The ICoC has both a shorter history and a more limited literature than the CoC. In particular, it's been the subject of less academic and historical study. My hope is that will change over time. I'm a bit surprised that the presence of an "editorial board" is becoming the proposed standard for what constitutes a reliable source. Are we asserting that the other sources cited in this article do have editorial boards and recognized fact-checking processes? I suspect demonstrating that would be an interesting process. I'm also interested in why we think the CRI is "essentially a one-man-show" - as of 2003 CRI had approximately 50 employees. I don't agree that a "cursory look" at the Bjornstad article demonstrates that "CRI is hardly a robust source," and would argue that any more than a cursory look would demostrate that it is in fact more than a personal website/blog. I get the sensitivity, but the issue of rebaptism is one of the central doctrinal questions separating the ICoC from the rest of the Restoration Movement in general, and the mainline CoCs in particular. EastTN (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@EastTN, you may want to brush up your knowledge of CRI. This is not a reputable source or organisation. It is registered as a "charity" with the lowest possible score of 1 out of 4 [2]. Christianity Today on August 15, 1994 ran an article on CRI where 24 of the employees you mentioned signed a letter and sued CRI for "racketeering", "corruption", "Tax fraud" amongst a litany of other charges. We already have a reliable source in the ICOC article making the claims you are wanting added, there is no need to add poor quality sources here. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The issue to which you're referring had to do with excessive salaries for certain executives. This is, of course, especially inappropriate for a non-profit that solicits donations. But those allegations don't have anything to do with the content of the articles they published, and arose a decade after the Bjornstad article was published. This is a bit like questioning the quality of the New York Times' newsroom based on concerns about the ethics of their accounting department. If the content isn't the issue, are you suggesting that you're fine with the text, but just don't want to link to this particular article? One of the values of Bjornstad is that the article is available free online. The other sources are likely not easily accessible to the average reader. EastTN (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@EastTN, you are making leaps of comparison here about the width of the Grand Canyon! CRI is nothing even close to the Wall Street journal. The problems did not arise like you compared "in the accounts department" but at the very top structure of CRI. The corruption was FAR worse than inflated salaries to Hanegraaf and his wife but included "Racketeering", and "Fraud". Unfortunately a requirement for Reliable Sources on Wikipedia is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". CRI falls well below that bar. As I said before the material you have inserted already has a Reliable Source supporting it and trying to force CRI material in here is inappropriate and would simply lower the quality of the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
JamieBrown2011, you and JamesLappeman were apparantly fine with using Bjornstad as a source as long as the text was limited to "According to James Bjornstad not only does the ICOC require water baptism for salvation, it also requires one to be baptized as a disciple." Unfortunately, that misrepresents what Bjornstad has to say. In the very same sentence, he links that belief to rebaptism. For some reason, the rest of what Bjornstad has to say seems to be an issue. Some of the arguments that have been advanced include:
  • He's only talking about one congregation. That turned out not to be true.
  • It's ""essentially a one-man-show" and a self-published source. That turned out not to be true.
Now we're saying that an article:
  • that was fine to source for a short, positive statement;
  • was written by a professor in his area of expertise;
  • was published by an organization that has a substantial staff and has been around for 40+ years;
does not meet a reasonable standard for reliability even when the material is clearly identified as the view of the author:
  • because of financial improrieties of the publisher (not the author) [you do realize that "racketeering" and "fraud" are technical legal charges that are commonly used by prosecutors in the case of financial misdealings?];
  • that came to light a decade after the article was published.
Again, I would ask - if the content isn't the issue, are you suggesting that you're fine with the text, but just don't want to link to this particular article? I really do want to be clear about this, because I strongly suspect that if I dig out the printed sources again, I'll find that they contain essentially the same material as Bjornstad covers. But I don't want to go to the trouble if that's not the real issue here. EastTN (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S. If you do have an underlying concern with the content, I would strongly encourage you find a source that says the ICoC has changed its practices in this area. If you can do that, it will genuinely strengthen the article. I haven't seen one, but given what I do know of the trajectory of the group, I suspect that it really has changed in this area. While this is an important part of the ICoC's history, because it was a significant source of controversy and friction with other churches, documenting the changes over time is equally important. EastTN (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there something on Wikipedia that defines a reliable source? Please do not tell me what a reliable source is, but please, direct me to a page that says what a reliable source is. For example, would these articles constitute reliable sources?

A CHURCH OF CHRIST OR CULT OF CASH Critics slam group as manipulative BY Dave Saltonstall , Daily News , Staff Writer NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Sunday, October 22, 2000, 12:00 AM http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/church-christ-cult-cash-critics-slam-group-manipulative-article-1.887922

Church's Practices Criticized -- Seattle Church Of Christ Too Controlling, Some Say By Lee Moriwaki, Susan Gilmore The Seattle Times (Winner of nine Pulitzer prizes) http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930711&slug=1710557 Qewr4231 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If these are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia, then can you prove that these are not reliable sources? Both are respected newspapers. One is based in New York and another is based in Seattle. The Seattle one has won 9 Pulitzer prizes.

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE & Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Why the challenging tone? EastTN (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not mean to sound challenging. I apologize.

I am looking at this definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source

It says:

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)."

Henry Kriete and his wife Marilyn Kriete are the authors of the "Henry Kriete Letter" which brought to light many abuses in the ICOC. Would Henry Kriete and Henry Kriete's personal website be the authoritative source on the Henry Kriete letter? Why, when I tried posting Henry and Marilyn Kriete's own words from their own personal website about the Henry Kriete letter, do people say that it's not a proper source? Aren't Henry and Marilyn Kriete the authoritative source of the "Henry Kriete Letter?" After all Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter and are the authors of that letter. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Biased or Opinionated Sources WP:BIASED

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."

I think some of the sources that people are disregarding as unreliable may in fact be reliable as Wikipedia states on it's reliable sources page. Biased or opinionated sources are accepted by Wikipedia as long as they meet "editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." A person can't argue that a source is not reliable simply because the source is biased or opinionated. Biased and opinionated sources are acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. It would seem that sources biased against or opinionated against the ICOC are acceptable as long as they meet "the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Qewr4231 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.icochotnews.com/

Is http://www.icochotnews.com/ a reliable news organization?

"Icoc HotNews was created by Mike and Justin with the simple goal of making available information and news from the ICOC (International Church of Christ) congregations around the world. Our goal is inform, give opinion and keep up to date with developments within this family of churches.

Who writes the stories? Our correspondents from around the world file stories and report the news. Our editorial team includes Karen Louis (MA - Counseling) from Singapore, Dave Pocta (MA - Div) from South Africa, Zach Fazio (BA - Communications/New Media/Journalism) from the USA. Our newest member comes with nearly twenty years experience as a professional journalist, Vida Li-Sik (BA - Journalism). This news site is absolutely a team effort. So sit back and enjoy.

The Editors" http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/17

Is ICOC Hot News a blog? Is ICOC Hot News a credible news organization?

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Section in Error?

What does the section entitled "See also" that links readers to Early Christianity have to do with the ICOC? What does the ICOC have to do with Early Christianity if anything? The ICOC was not around during early Christianity, and the ICOC certainly has nothing to do with early Christianity

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources Used in the article

Associations: HOPE Worldwide,[3] It goes to https://www.hopeww.org/ Where does it say that Hope Worldwide is connected to the International Churches of Christ on that page? Qewr4231 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Associations: HOPE Worldwide,[3] DPI Books [4] The DPI Books source goes to http://dpibooks.blogspot.com/ The source page says: "Now that DPI has ended operations, you can still find many books and other products that were published by DPI. Most products are available either through: Good Book Press or Illumination Publications" Qewr4231 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Source Number 8: "Data and Analysis". ICOC Info. International Churches of Christ. April 2006. Retrieved 2007-07-09. It links me to this page: http://icocinfo.org/chartlist.html The page is in Japanese. How would Americans know what the page says?? Qewr4231 (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Source Number 12: Beliefs, Columbia Church of Christ website (accessed 24 December 2013) It links me to this page: http://colachurch.org/ How do the beliefs of the Columbia Church of Christ substantiate or prove the beliefs of the entire ICOC? Where on this page are the beliefs of the Columbia Church of Christ listed? Qewr4231 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Source Number 13: "It is a family or network of 650 churches spread across some 155 nations, they consider themselves non-denominational.[6][13]" It links me to: http://web.archive.org/web/20080325065212/http://www.nyccoc.net/home/whoweare.htm

How does the link prove that the International Churches of Christ is " . . . a family or network of 650 churches spread across some 155 nations, they consider themselves non-denominational.[6][13]" ??? This source is very confusing. Qewr4231 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the sources use ICOC Hot News whatever that is. Is this a blog? Is this a newspaper? Is this a credible news organization? What is this? Qewr4231 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Source number 35 leads me to http://www.disciplestoday.org/has-a-new-era-begun-for-the-icoc which in turn leads me to the full article at http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/1959 which is entitled "OPINION: Has a New Era Begun in the International churches of Christ?" written by Mike Taliaferro. Who is Mike Taliaferro and why is he a good source for "Once the fastest-growing Christian movement in the United States, membership growth slowed during the later half of the 1990s" ????

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Source 89 leads me to this page: http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article.aspx?articleid=straitstimes19970717-1.2.44.11&sessionid=72180122d5ed4f80adf22fc659b9de9f&keyword=central+christian+church+hearings&token=hearings%2cchurch%2cchristian%2ccentral

I quote what is found on that web page:

"The Straits Times, 17 July 1997, Page 35 Church not a cult, says expert witness Article also available on microfilm reel NL20190 [Lee Kong Chian Reference Library - On shelf]

Note: This article may only be viewed from the multimedia stations at NLB Libraries. For more information, please visit the FAQ page. To obtain an un-watermarked copy of this article, please visit our FAQ page for more information."

The source is not available to people on the internet which makes this a less than credible source. It's essentially the same as having no source because of the source's inaccessibility.

Source 89 also leads me to this: http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article.aspx?articleid=straitstimes19971111-1.2.37.14&sessionid=72180122d5ed4f80adf22fc659b9de9f&keyword=central+christian+church+hearings&token=hearings%2cchurch%2cchristian%2ccentral

"The Straits Times, 11 November 1997, Page 30 Newspapers' privilege no greater than private citizen Article also available on microfilm reel NL20213 [Lee Kong Chian Reference Library - On shelf]

Note: This article may only be viewed from the multimedia stations at NLB Libraries. For more information, please visit the FAQ page. To obtain an un-watermarked copy of this article, please visit our FAQ page for more information."

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the ICOC.

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

In the Affiliated Organizations section all have references except: Baltic Nordic Missions Alliance, European Bible School, Florida Missions Council, Taiwan Mission Adventure

Why do these not have references?

Qewr4231 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Discipleship Publications International

This line

* Discipleship Publications International – Published 175 books in 25 different languages.<ref>http://dpibooks.org/about-dpi</ref>

was removed. I'm putting it here in case there is a use for it such as in a list of past organizations. I'm also adding this

<ref name=dpibooks>{{cite web|last1=Jones|first1=Sheila|title=About DPI|url=http://dpibooks.org/about-dpi|website=DPIbooks.org|publisher=DPI Books|accessdate=3 April 2015|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20130117152111/http://dpibooks.org/about-dpi|archivedate=17 January 2013|dead-url=yes}}</ref>

so that it'll be properly cited to the archive. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Section on Public Perception

The Section entitled "Public Perception" doesn't mention anything other than a Singapore High Court ruling. What about public perception in other countries? Shouldn't this section also include public perception in other countries? Certainly Singapore isn't the whole world. And certainly the Singapore High Court is part of the government in Singapore? So this section would be better entitled "The Singapore government's perception of the ICOC?" Qewr4231 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

As per usual, if reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have thoughts about the church, then that information could be included. (Assuming that Public perception is a normal thing to have in an article about a church, which I do not know that it is.) But the section is aptly titled as it is, since the broadness of "Public perception" invites additions. On the contrary, changing it to "The Singapore government's perception of the ICOC" would be a bizarrely narrow section to have in an article, and readers would wonder why the Singaporean government's opinion is so weighty. I think readers are smart enough to figure out that there's only one opinion without being told that there's only one opinion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on International Churches of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The first link goes to the Pepperdine University homepage. The second and third links go to 403 errors. In fact all of the new links go to non existent sources. Qewr4231 (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Chance For Africa

In the "The ICOC on US college campuses" section there is mention of "Chance For Africa." There doesn't seem to be a link to "Chance For Africa?" The official link is http://chanceforafrica.org/ If this is not an ICOC run organization perhaps there should be a link inserted where this organization is mentioned? Qewr4231 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

http://www.ctcoc.co.za/node/123

This is a dead link. It is link 64.

"The International churches of Christ are a family of 650 churches in 155 nations around the world. The 650 churches form 30 regional families of churches that oversee mission work in their respective geographic areas of influence. Each regional family of churches sends Evangelists, Elders and Teachers to an annual leadership conference, where delegates meet to pray, plan and co-operate world evangelism.[48][49]"

Links 48 and 49 go to a dead link. I think that the statistical information mentioned in the article paragraph should be backed up by solid evidence?

Under the "One Church" section there is this paragraph:

"The ICOC holds that the Bible teaches the existence of a single universal church. One implication of this doctrine is that, while Christians may separate themselves into different, disunified churches (as opposed to just geographically separated congregations), it is not actually biblically right to do so, and so such separations are not likely to take place between groups of Christians who are obedient to the Bible. While no-one claims to know who exactly is part of "the universal church" and who is not, the ICOC believes that anyone who follows the plan of salvation as laid out in the scriptures is added by God to his "One Universal Church".[11][51]"

Link 51 is a dead link. It is supposed to go to a page on the Columbia Church of Christ website that discusses whether or not the ICOC is the one true church. Instead it takes readers to the Columbia Church of Christ's homepage. Link 11 does not talk about one universal church?

"The ICOC sees God at work in many congregations around the world who are not necessarily affiliated with the ICOC. Christian churches, Churches of Christ and other biblically sound churches have faithful Christians in them.[11][51]"

Link 51 is a dead link. Link 11 does not talk about how "The ICOC sees God at work in many congregations around the world who are not necessarily affiliated with the ICOC. Christian churches, Churches of Christ and other biblically sound churches have faithful Christians in them."

The links that support a statement under the beliefs section of the article do not support the statement. "They believe that anyone who follows the plan of salvation as laid out in the scriptures is saved by the grace of God." There are four links given as evidence. One is a dead link. The other three links do not support the statement "They believe that anyone who follows the plan of salvation as laid out in the scriptures is saved by the grace of God."

Qewr4231 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Qewr4231: Thank you for the notes. I believe I've addressed most of them in these subsequent edits. Some content had to be removed because there was no archive for the reference. In the future, if you felt so inclined, accessing archive.org and looking for archived copies of the content and bring them to the talk page would be additionally helpful. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty well

I like Christian fundamentalism, I think this is what we really need. Also I like the focus on the New Testament.

But, there is nothing in the article, if this church is trinitarian, or not. So are they or not?

79.237.174.243 (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I quote from the article:

Pepperdine University published a document in 2010 highlighting the core beliefs of the ICOC:

GOD: FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT

1. The eternal purpose of any Christian is to know God and to glorify him as God, and let our life shine so others will see God. Our devotion and ultimate loyalties are to the Father, who is over all and in all and through all; to Jesus the Son, who has been declared both Lord and Christ; and to the Holy Spirit, who lives in us and empowers us to overcome the workings of the sinful nature (Acts 2.22–36, Rom 8.12–28). 2. The cornerstone of our faith is our belief in Jesus Christ. Everything we hold dear in our faith originates from his words and his way of life (John 3.16, John 12.47–48, I John 2.5–6). 3. The Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is sharp, powerful, effective, challenging, exposing, and encouraging when it is revered, studied, preached, taught, and obeyed because it is from our Creator and therefore relevant for all generations (1 Tim 4.13, 2 Tim 3.16–17,4.1–5, Heb 4.12–13).

Qewr4231 (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems well explained already JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I support the deletion of the ICOC wikipedia article. I just have no idea how to voice my support for deletion. Qewr4231 (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on International Churches of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Any non-ICOC Sources?

Any non-ICOC sources used as references? Qewr4231 (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Leadership

The article does not say who replaced Kip and Elena Mckean as leaders of the International Churches of Christ. Does anyone have that information? Qewr4231 (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Is This True?

"The ICoC has its roots in a movement that reaches back to the period of the Second Great Awakening (1790–1870) of early nineteenth-century America. Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell are credited with what is today known as the Stone-Campbell or Restoration Movement." Is this true? The reference for this is Stanback, C. Foster. Into All Nations: A History of the International Churches of Christ. IPI, 2005. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this the same person? http://wealthtriangle.com/about-us/

"C. Foster Stanback Foster Stanback is an expert in building and maintaining financial wealth. He joined Landon Taylor in 2011 to help launch the Wealth Triangle Institute. Foster teaches key wealth-building principles that were handed down to him by his father, who was fortunate enough to learn directly from some of the most respected authorities in the financial industry. Foster’s contributions to the Wealth Triangle Institute provide sound wisdom on the best methods to achieving sustainable financial independence.

However, the best part about Foster’s advice is that it is free from any ulterior motive. He does not sell financial products, nor does he earn any commission for referring you to those who do sell them. Foster manages his own multi-million dollar portfolio. He simply has a passion for educating everyday people on very uncomplicated and straightforward wealth-building principles, which can be implemented easily without having to pay tens of thousands of dollars of fees to asset managers who may not have their clients’ best interests at heart." Qewr4231 (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

How can a late 20th Century movement claim to stem from the Second Great Awakening? Seems to be taking a great liberty here in connecting the Second Great Awakening with the ICOC, Kip Mckean, and Chuck Lucas.

"The ICoC has its roots in a movement that reaches back to the period of the Second Great Awakening (1790–1870) of early nineteenth-century America. Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell are credited with what is today known as the Stone-Campbell or Restoration Movement. There are a number of branches of the Restoration movement and the ICoC was formed from within the Churches of Christ.[14] Specifically, it was born from a "discipling" movement that arose among the mainline Churches of Christ during the 1970s.[7] This discipling movement developed in the campus ministry of Chuck Lucas.[7]" Qewr4231 (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Should Chuck Lucas be connected to the Great Awakening or Second Great Awakening? Qewr4231 (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment

My edit regarding Niall MachMahon was removed under the basis of WP:Notability. After rereading the page, I am still unsure the issue.

Is the argument that it is not a noteable event? Niall MacMahon's suicide and the corresponding coroner invitation of the Dublin Church of Christ was reported independently by at least the Irish Times (the source which I provided), the Irish Independent (the largest daily newspaper in Ireland), and the Irish Examiner. As this was a major news story in Ireland, I believe it is notable.

I tried to provide the source with the least controversial title, and did my best to word it in a way that stated the facts of the case. I would appreciate further comment and explanation. Pecans620620 (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

user:JamieBrown2011 undid you. While notability is not a valid reason to remove content from an article, I agree that the material is not appropriate, at least as you used it in the "Public perception" section. A church member committed suicide, a family member blamed the church, the church was invited to the coroner's inquest but declined to attend. There is no mention of any public perception issue. Meters (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. I was confused about the notability thing, so I appreciate you clearing this up. Additionally, I do see and agree with your point on the placement. Do you believe a more appropriate place to mention it would be in the "the 2000s" part of the article? I don't think it warrants a significant part of the section, but perhaps a sentence or half sentence referencing it would be appropriate. Pecans620620 (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Not unless you have better sources that have significantly more to say about it. As it is it is just a bereaved family member pointing his finger, and I don't think that has any place in the article. Now, if the coroner's inquest blames the church that would be worth mentioning, but it seems very unlikely that the source you provided would not have mentioned such blame.. Meters (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sorry WP:Note was not the appropriate policy to refer to, WP:undue is more relevant. The point does stand that this is not a notable event unless, as has been mentioned the coroner thinks the church was culpable. However since this happened over a dozen years ago and there is no mention of culpability, there is nothing here of encyclopedic value. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Singapore Court Case

How is the Singapore Court Case relevant to the ICOC article? Is it of particular importance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4260:35D0:1483:70F8:956D:F556 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Church History

There is no proof offered for the following statement in the church history section: "The ICoC has its roots in a movement that reaches back to the period of the Second Great Awakening (1790–1870) of early nineteenth-century America." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4260:35D0:1483:70F8:956D:F556 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

/* US college campuses */ adding Boston Globe article and providing fuller summary of US News article

JamieBrown2011, you undid some of my edits in the US college campuses section. Can you please explain why? You cited WP: puffery, but I'm not sure that there's anything there that obviously supports your edits. Presumably, what reliable third-party sources--like The Boston Globe, Christianity Today, and US News and World Report--report about the ICOC on college campuses is relevant for an encyclopedia article on the ICOC in the college campus section. Would you summarize the articles differently? If so, how? I'm not sure that removing what these sources say is best for the article. Walterkwhite (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion about this when these references were first introduced to this page and both puffery and WP:UNDUE were cited to limit the extent of their inclusion. This is a global church operating in 150 countries and giving too much emphasis to a US college campus was clearly undue emphasis.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
JamieBrown2011, I assume that you wrote the above, but I'm not sure: no one signed it. Again, I don't see how WP:puffery applies here. And after reading the WP:undue section, I don't see how that applies, either. While the ICOC is a global church, it is well-known for its proselytizing efforts, especially on college campuses. You seem to think these articles from reliable third-party sources shouldn't be mentioned at all. If so, we are at a stalemate. Do you know what the next step is to resolve this? Walterkwhite (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Walter, Yes, sorry I was using the mobile editor for the first time and assumed it put in my signature. I think it is quite obvious that putting in an undue amount of text and references to a very small element of a global organisation is against WP policy. It is not being ignored and that is why there is already reference to the criticism the church has received on US colleges, but the argument to include additional references and charged wording and labels like "cult" etc is better suited for blogs and social media than an encyclopaedia. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
JamieBrown2011, I'm not sure that I agree. An encyclopedia entry on a controversial organization like the ICOC needs to discuss the controversy. The articles I mentioned from third-party reliable sources seem to do a good job of summarizing the criticisms levied against the ICOC at college campuses. If you'd like to suggest other wordings for summarizing the articles, I'm all for it. If not, I think we're at a stalemate and would need someone else from WP to help arbitrate our disagreement. Can you suggest a path forward? Walterkwhite (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Walterkwhite, WP:Undue clearly states:"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Further "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery." The article already includes in the lead "In 2000, it was described as "[a] fast-growing Christian organization known for aggressive proselytizing to [US] college students" and as "one of the most controversial religious groups on campus." This viewpoint is specifically mentioned again in a subsection titled "US College Campuses." For a GLOBAL movement spanning over 150 countries, any additional information on this topic pertaining to US campuses, is unnecessary. Psmidi (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Psmidi, thank you for contributing. I think that you point to some germane parts of WP:Undue. But I'm not sure that the views expressed by the aforementioned reliable third-party sources are the minority. As I mentioned previously, the ICOC is a controversial organization. So it makes sense that its Wikipedia article would mention the controversies. How do we move forward on this? Rather than undoing your edits, I'd like to reach a consensus. Since you and JamieBrown2011 appear more experienced at WP than me, can you advise who we reach out to in order to help us settle this? Walterkwhite (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
JamieBrown2011 and Psmidi, as mentioned previously, the ICOC has been involved in some controversies, especially on college campuses. While there is some mention of the controversies in this article, they're brief and not very detailed. I'd like to improve the objectivity of the article by mentioning the controversies in a bit more detail as well as the ICOC response to the controversies. As I see it, these articles from third-party reliable sources--Christianity Today, US News and World Report, and The Boston Globe--do that pretty well. Here's what I'd like to add. What are your thoughts? I'm trying to strike a balance of criticism and the ICOC's response(s).
The evangelical periodical Christianity Today in 1997 reported that campus ministers and religion scholars state that although the ICOC is "among the nation's newest and fastest growing movements", "it may also be among the most dangerous". The spokesman and elder of an ICOC church, Al Baird, disputes this charge, claiming that the "group's intense focus on evangelism and discipleship is grounded in Scripture"[3] Robert W. Thornburg, former dean of Boston University's Marsh Chapel, says that the church is "the most destructive religious group [he's] ever seen."[3] The dean goes on to say that "[t]hey're a destructive religion, everyone else calls them a cult, and they're the only group about which I would say that unambiguously"; he adds "[t]hey are destructive to freedom of thought, freedom of movement, and freedom of activity. They cut kids off from their families, and their method of recruiting and keeping kids in qualifies as first-rate mind control". In the same article the Rev. Peter J. Scanlon, Catholic chaplain was less concerned and said that: "I think our kids will be OK. ...cults aren't limited to religion - you could have a beer-drinking cult too, and we do have that."[4]
U.S. News and World Report ran an article in 2000 discussing proselytizing on college campuses. The article's author, Carolyn Kleiner, describes the ICOC as "[a] fast-growing Christian organization known for aggressive proselytizing to college students" and as "one of the most controversial religious groups on campus". Kleiner states that "some ex-members and experts on mind-control assert [it] is a cult". Furthermore, "[a]t least 39 institutions, including Harvard and Georgia State, have outlawed the organization at one time or another for violating rules against door-to-door recruiting, say, or harassment." In response to the question "A zealous group to be sure, but is it a cult?", U.S. News and World Report also quotes ICOC spokesperson Al Baird, who says "We're no more a cult than Jesus was a cult" and Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden, who agrees with Baird, saying "[e]very new religion experiences a high level of tension with society because its beliefs and ways are unfamiliar. But most, if they survive, we come to accept as part of the religious landscape".[5]
Thank you, Walterkwhite (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Walter, references and mentions of these articles are already included in the page, but wiki policy states WP:BALASP says: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

College Campuses--USC Criticism and Apology

The US College Campuses section of this article includes the following paragtaph:

At the University of Southern California, the school newspaper ran an article criticizing the church, and after questioning the sources of the article, the Dean of Religious Life, Revd. Elizabeth Davenport, Senior Associate Dean of Religious Life, and Sherry Caudle, Administrator for the Office of Religious Life, wrote a letter to the editor. The school officials said that the author's information was "outdated and misleading." They said "the church is unfairly and incorrectly identified" as a problem group. They also said that the truth is "the church has been a very positive influence in the lives of the USC students in recent years.

The above paragraph has a hyperlink that is sourced to https://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/59. However, this is not a newspaper but rather some kind of blog. Does anyone have a link or citation to the actual article that the above paragraph refers to? Walterkwhite (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that the link to the blog is not proof. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:64FD:AAE:38FF:FADF (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The University of Southern California has never said that "the church has been a very positive influence in the lives of the USC students in recent years." In fact I can find what USC said about the International Churches of Christ. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:20B3:FF23:D4E7:F33F (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

From: https://tolc.org/trojan

Cult awareness panel discusses religious group University of Southern California Daily Trojan, September 18, 1998. By Dania Alvarez, Staff Writer

USC students shared their experiences about their past involvement with the Los Angeles Church of Christ in a session called “Cults on Campus,” held Thursday in the Norman Topping Student Center.

The discussion and video presentation was sponsored by the Office of Religious Life and Division of Student Activities in an attempt to make the USC community aware of what Rabbi Susan Laemmle, dean of Religious Life at the University Religious Center, called “very high pressure deceptive religious groups.”

Speakers at Thursday’s panel were those who were recruited into certain religious groups that are commonly defined as cults. They had difficult experiences when attempting to leave the group.

“As a result of their involvement with this group (Church of Christ) and others like it, I’ve known people whose life has changed drastically, some, who have had to leave school for years,” said Aaron Preston, a graduate student in philosophy.

Preston recalled his experiences with the Church of Christ during his freshman year as an undergraduate in 1991.

He said that he “never became a member, but my entire involvement was during the recruitment process.”

“The real emotional pain that I went through, it was so strong and the doubts, this all just made me wishSthat life would just be over with,” Preston said.

On his way to class one day, Preston was approached by someone who invited him to a bible study sponsored by the Church of Christ. “I, being from a smallish town in Northern California, it seemed to be attractive, and having a religious background myself, was interested in meeting with this group of like-minded people,” he recalled.

He eventually met with two people who changed some of his views on religion and life.

“Where I thought that God thought that I was doing OK in life, he didn’t,” Preston said during the discussion panel about the recruiters he met. “While I thought that my future was secure with (God), it wasn’t. So my whole framework took a period jolt, and at the end I was pretty well convinced that what I had been told was true.”

Preston remained with the Church of Christ for a couple of months and then went home for Thanksgiving break. He said he was warned by the group that his parents would try to convince him to get out of the church “but I found it strange that they should mention the possibility, maybe having experienced that before.”

Janine Marnien, a sophomore majoring in print journalism, said she also had a very similar experience.

“I was baptized within one week,” she said.

Marnien ended up staying for only four months, after having moved in with members of the Church, but ended up leaving because she was having a hard time with their beliefs.

Her life was run by the Church of Christ, she said. She added that she would often need to check back with someone called a “disciple.”

“I had to compromise my time on my father’s birthday which was Memorial Day, because I had a meeting with them that day and I had to attend.”

Marnien is in the process of co-creating a group called SOS that will have a web site and other sources for people who are looking for support as they attempt to leave groups such as the Church of Christ.

“There are dangerous groups to be aware of on campus,” said Laemmle. “Religion can take healthy and unhealthy forms.” She said that students should “find a place that is comfortable and supportive (when it comes to religious groups), so the answer to avoiding cults is to find a healthy religious group.”

Laemmle also made reference to a section in the University Religious Center/Office of Religious Life pamphlet, Religious Opportunities 1998-1999. “A Word of Warning” offers advice on how to avoid cults.

The program also included a speech by David Crandall, director of the Office of Student Activities, who has been on the campus for more than 20 years. He offered his knowledge of the history of religious activity at USC.

Excerpts from a MTV special called “New Religions – The Cult Question” were shown to the audience as well.

The video informed of cults, especially three specific groups. The International Church of Christ was one of the groups, a group known to exist on campus, said students on the panel.

Neutrality

This page seemingly intends to proselyte new members to the "church", as it not displays many and serious contradictions involving ICoC movement, which is held by a cult and a very manipulative one as easily shown by some old news stories<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrMKHoVbZoU</ref 2600:1700:4260:35D0:71EA:8978:24B:22AF (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


I agree. This article's neutrality is suspect. It reads as an advertisement for the ICOC and not as an encyclopedia entry.

Agreed. There are entire articles dedicated to criticism of other religions, but some users (most likely associated with ICOC) have done their best to make sure the slightest whiff of criticism is removed from this page. Something must be done about this. Ladril (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. 9 of the results of the first two pages of google for “international church of christ” include the words cult, manipulative, or abusive. When you type in international church of Christ the third suggested search is cult. Someone even wrote a book on it (below). The article appears to have been entirely sanitised - obviously there are two sides to every story but the total omission is indisputably not NPOV. As someone mentioned, it reads very much like an advertisement. I also agree it seems probable that numerous editors here have a conflict of interest.

Given the general consensus and the huge amount of literature omitted I’m going to tag this article for POV.

Book:

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Baptism_Cult.html?id=kzioPAAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

This page links to a whole bunch of sources https://tolc.org/media

Even more sources: https://www.icsahome.com/articles/the-results-of-the-international-cultic-studies-association-s-2008-questionnaire-dowhower-it-4-1 https://www.washingtonian.com/2008/07/01/unanswered-prayers-the-story-of-one-woman-leaving-the-international-church-of-christ/ https://culteducation.com/group/983-international-church-of-christ.html https://www.cultwatch.com/icc.html 

John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 21:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I did a simple Google search for The International Churches of Christ. Here are the results:

1. The Wikipedia article 2. An ICOC produced website 3. A website calling the ICOC a cult 4. A website stating that the ICOC has some controversial beliefs. 5. A website that would recommend people to stay away from the ICOC. 6. 3 videos talking about the ICOC being a cult. 7. A website calling the ICOC a cult. 8. A website discussing controversial beliefs. 9. A story of a person escaping the ICOC calling the ICOC a cult. 10. A website talking about the faulty beliefs of the ICOC. 11. A website calling the ICOC a cult. 12. A website calling the ICOC a cult. 13. An ICOC produced website 14. An advertising website 15. A website stating that the ICOC abuses people. 16. A paper written by an ICOC leader.

Yet nothing is mentioned about the ICOC's controversial practices or it's mention as a cult. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5442:7924:142A:EB7B (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The ICOC uses "heavy shepherding." This is not mentioned in the ICOC article.

https://www.gotquestions.org/heavy-shepherding.html

“Heavy shepherding” (also referred to as the “Discipleship Movement”) is a method of psychological control used by abusive churches and cults. It came out of the Shepherding Movement of the 1970s. The International Churches of Christ from the Boston Movement is perhaps the most well-known group that practices heavy shepherding. Another infamous group to come out of the Shepherding Movement was Christian Grown Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Florida." 2600:1700:4260:35D0:21E3:78B3:A85D:AFB9 (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I see no mention of certain practices used by the ICOC in the Wikipedia ICOC article. The following article from Got Questions talks about the practices used by the ICOC: https://www.gotquestions.org/International-Church-of-Christ.html

1. " . . . high-pressure, intrusive, and abusive or spiritually manipulative tactics at the hand of the leader they were assigned to."

2. Love bombing. "This fits well with the ICOC’s preferred method of “love-bombing”—suddenly and purposefully surrounding a person with high amounts of friendly contact, various forms of aid, and an overall sense of being immersed in a community—things first-year college students especially crave. While none of these things are unbiblical (indeed, community, service, and friendliness are all excellent aims for Christians), the International Churches of Christ uses these virtues as a façade and manipulative tool to increase membership."

3. The ICOC calls itself the one true church. " . . . the group is exclusivist, claiming that the church is meant to be divided only by geography. Any church outside of their unified system, i.e., not under the ICOC’s leadership, is not a part of the “true church.” Such claims of exclusivity should raise a red flag. Any church or denomination that claims to be the “one true church” and that all others are false churches is itself teaching falsehood."

4. Grace and salvation through works. "The ICOC believes that anyone who is not baptized is not saved and must be “evangelized” and brought into the church. Further, the ICOC teaches that the only “valid” baptism is one performed by the ICOC. No other baptism will do. Further still, the ICOC does not allow anyone to be baptized until he or she is first a “disciple” committed to the organization. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that salvation is by grace through faith, apart from works (Ephesians 2:8–9)—including the work of baptism."

There is no mention of any of these things in the Wikipedia ICOC article. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:21E3:78B3:A85D:AFB9 (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are there links to content in Portuguese at the bottom of the ICOC article? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:299C:36C:B735:2293 (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliability and independence of sources

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability and independence of sources for International Churches of Christ about some of the sources used in this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Court Cases

In early 2023, 6 Federal Court Cases were filed against the ICOC alleging child molestation, racketeering and other horrendous claims. In July of 2023 the 6 plaintiffs all withdrew their cases and the judge dismissed ALL the cases. This comes from a Reliable Source found at www.pacermonitor.com (which is a site that keeps dockets of court cases in the US). On the ICOC page an editor has referenced that 2 cases have been refiled, based on a Rolling Stone Magazine article. A simple search reveals that no such LA County Court Cases have actually been logged. If anyone has a primary source that proves the secondary source (Rolling Stone Magazine) is accurate please provide it? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone article is quite clear in its assertion that cases have been filed: "According to two lawsuits filed July 13 in L.A. County Court, the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) is not a church, but a 'cult,' a high-control group where leaders allegedly take advantage of the members". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted this addition based on primary sources. I think we need secondary sources covering these recent court filings to be able to note them, but others may take a different view, so I'm raising it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I am surprised that court cases that haven't even had a ruling are even on this Wikipedia page, this comes across like a gossip magazine more than an encyclopedia. Either WP:BALASPS or WP:BLPGROUP seem to apply. Once there is a ruling then that can be included on this page. Until then the basic rule of NPOV or "innocent until proven guilty" should apply. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
If they've been reported in reliable, secondary sources and the text is neutral, I don't see the problem. Reporting on an ongoing case isn't the same as making an assumption about guilt. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Here is the primary info on the four state cases pending in Los Angeles against ICC, ICOC and Kippers. Someone keeps removing this info from the article. But these are official, public records.
"As of October 26, 2023, four lawsuits with a total of 16 plaintiffs have been filed in Los Angeles County Court, alleging sexual abuse of children by church leaders and members [Cases Nos. 23STCV16423, 23STCV16430, 23STCV18426 and 23STCV24432]."
Here is the court's website, where these cases can be looked up by the case number [no need to enter any "filing courthouse].:https://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/index.aspx?casetype=civil
Here is the actual fourth complaint.:https://drive.google.com/file/d/174tr_QdQqqNPvJ9gdaYXwg-UOJp1S_Aw/view thought1 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
The someone is me, 1pameroo, as should be clear from my comment from 30 October above and comments at User talk:1pameroo#October 2023. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
All four court complaints can currently be read here. https://icoc-icclawsuits.com/ Kip has appeared in all 4 cases. thought1 (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ Malinoski, Peter (1999). "Psychological Distress in Former Members of the International Churches of Christ and Noncultic Groups". CSJ. 16 (1): 33–51. Retrieved 10/09/2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. (2001 November 7). "An Investigation of a Reputedly Psychologically Abusive Group That Targets College Students". Cultic Studies Review. {{cite journal}}: Check |authorlink= value (help); Check date values in: |year= (help); External link in |authorlink= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Christianity Today was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Paulson, Michael (2001-02-23). "Campuses ban alleged church cult". The Boston Globe.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference US News and World Report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ/Archive_8&oldid=1221485182"