Radical Love is out there - Speak to me!
Clinton Williams
This seems like such a whaste. We use this great device to correct our
grammer and logic diagrams. I like the Lotus add with the guys saying
"Billion dollar system and what do we use it for?" "Surfing..."
What's happening out there in the churches?
In Auckland, NZ and also in a couple of Australian cities, we got us a
campaign going on. It's a standard meet lots of lost people campaign but we
had an international day with focus on being different, and different food
events on Sundays. A lot of thought is going into things and a lot of
respect shown to people.
We are moving forward
Clinton Williams
Central Auckland Church of Christ
mme...@hotmail.com
In article <01bd5e1b$1de644c0$01ee...@clintonw.ihug.co.nz>,
"Clinton Williams" <clin...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> We are moving forward
>
> Clinton Williams
> Central Auckland Church of Christ
>
Actually, I was in the studio when the Duncan's recorded that CD, and if I'm
not mistaken, I'm in the credits of one of their numbers on the videotape.
Perhaps "Radical Budget" is more apt a title.
oh, it's a radical expense sheet that we share
it goes on and on and on and on, to show how much we dare...
to radically spend, all you've got,
it's not the fed'ral de-fi-cit, but it's quite a lot
it's a radical..................
mmeils
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Clinton Williams
> Perhaps "Radical Budget" is more apt a title.
> oh, it's a radical expense sheet that we share
> it goes on and on and on and on, to show how much we dare...
> to radically spend, all you've got,
> it's not the fed'ral de-fi-cit, but it's quite a lot
> it's a radical..................
>
> mmeils
That is so funny! I can see the talent already. What was your job on the
recording? I would love to have the ability to make music like that! I
mean, I like singing but only a select group of people like me singing.
Maybe with more lessons.... Tell me about the Duncans - they seem good
people.
Clinton.
mme...@hotmail.com
In article <01bd5ef7$7da5e8c0$9c96...@clintonw.ihug.co.nz>,
I helped to find mock singers from our ministry to feign singing while
swaying in a mixed chorus in one of the videos--I can't remember which.
Gregory Owens (Cosby Show) placed people in such a way that
blacks/whites/hispanics/orientals/ people of various heights were evenly
dispersed as the camera panned across a soundstage. It's a fairly typical
propaganda/marketing device; but nothing unusual to the ICC. Actually, this
sort of thing is quite indicative of the "Band Aid"/quasi-charity genus of
entertainment.
At the time, I saw the whole production to be incredibly
extravagant--especially in the way it was marketed. I felt that if they had
marketed the product to other religious groups through various christian
bookstores, they could have turned a sizable profit, and wouldn't have had
the members in Boston foot the bill. This sort of self-contained business
transaction, does ensure the sales of the product, however. So perhaps it
was geared toward avoiding embarassment or failure should the item prove to
be a flop on a legitimate market. This sort of nepotism is fairly common in
the promotional scope of the ICC's program. For instance, although I
personally esteem the members of the R & B group "Eye 2 Eye"--a local Boston
act comprised souly of BCC members--I find it sorely mendacious to pass out
ballots in BCC midweek services asking members to vote for them to win the
"Boston Music Awards". For the last three years, "Eye 2 Eye" has speciously
won this award by implementing this guileful tactic. The anomoly is that
"Eye 2 Eye" doesn't have a substantial local following outside of the ICC.
They market themselves primarily toward "GB" audiences (General Business)
i.e., weddings, corporate functions, etc.; not toward music consumers and
"Record" store patronage. This contest, the Boston Music Awards, grants
recognition and awards to those artists that receive nominations based
entirely on ballots filled out at local music stores such as "Strawberry's
Records" etc. Now, there's no way that "Eye 2 Eye" would ever win if this
understood routine were adheared to. The contest hasn't regulated this
because--I'd speculate--the award show's sponsors have no idea that their
standard procedures for determining a winner are being circumvented by the
ICC. For three years now, the BCC has been exploiting this dishonest
practice, and advertising the results at every opportunity--to bolster the
Sunday "quota" of potential recruits, or other ostensibly "secular"
activities the BCC conducts to lure unsuspecting enlistees.
The first time this happened, most ICC members--including myself--welcomed
the "win" as auspicious good fortune/god blessing our ministry, etc. The
second time around, members began to raise their eyebrows when staff-members
were asked to hand out xeroxed copies of the official ballot entry to members
during midweek services. Not only were they handed out, but members were
asked to vote for "Eye 2 Eye", fill in the appropriate boxes on the ballot,
and hand them back, to be collected and turned into "Strawberry's" en
masse--as if they were achieved under ordinary circumstances the way other
enties would be. This overt impropriety awakened the normally docile BCC
membership, and inspired a short-lived, but assiduously discussed "KingdomNet
Newsgroup" dialogue. This hotly-debated polemic grew over the course of
three or four days, until a certain unnamed GSL chimed in and unilaterally
suspended all conversation regarding the matter, articulately expressing his
paranoia that "critics might be listening". Even more peculiar, was the fact
that this GSL hadn't participated in the discussion at all during its initial
moments, but instead, broadcast his moratorium beginning with the phrase,
"I've been *monitoring* this conversation for some time now...".
After that, no one said a word, and conspicuously changed the subject.
Now that's power! But you know, you can only have power when others are
obedient.
Parenthetically, the Duncans are very sweet, religiously naive folks, who
could be superlative in their field, if they weren't so wrapped up in this
tragedy.
mme...@hotmail.com
In article <6g3o2a$rdu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
mme...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <01bd5ef7$7da5e8c0$9c96...@clintonw.ihug.co.nz>,
> "Clinton Williams" <clin...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps "Radical Budget" is more apt a title.
> > > oh, it's a radical expense sheet that we share
> > > it goes on and on and on and on, to show how much we dare...
> > > to radically spend, all you've got,
> > > it's not the fed'ral de-fi-cit, but it's quite a lot
> > > it's a radical..................
> > >
> > > mmeils
> >
> > That is so funny! I can see the talent already. What was your job on the
> > recording? I would love to have the ability to make music like that! I
> > mean, I like singing but only a select group of people like me singing.
> > Maybe with more lessons.... Tell me about the Duncans - they seem good
> > people.
> >
> > Clinton.
> >
>
> I helped to find mock singers from our ministry to feign singing while
> swaying in a mixed chorus in one of the videos--I can't remember which.
> Gregory Owens (Cosby Show) placed people in such a way that
> dispersed as the camera panned across a soundstage. It's a fairly typical
> propaganda/marketing device; but nothing unusual to the ICC. Actually, this
> sort of thing is quite indicative of the "Band Aid"/quasi-charity genus of
> entertainment.
>
> At the time, I saw the whole production to be incredibly
> extravagant--especially in the way it was marketed. I felt that if they had
> marketed the product to other religious groups through various christian
> bookstores, they could have turned a sizable profit, and wouldn't have had
> the members in Boston foot the bill. This sort of self-contained business
> transaction, does ensure the sales of the product, however. So perhaps it
> was geared toward avoiding embarassment or failure should the item prove to
> be a flop on a legitimate market. This sort of nepotism is fairly common in
> the promotional scope of the ICC's program. For instance, although I
> personally esteem the members of the R & B group "Eye 2 Eye"--a local Boston
> act comprised souly of BCC members--I find it sorely mendacious to pass out
> ballots in BCC midweek services asking members to vote for them to win the
> won this award by implementing this guileful tactic. The anomoly is that
> "Eye 2 Eye" doesn't have a substantial local following outside of the ICC.
> They market themselves primarily toward "GB" audiences (General Business)
> i.e., weddings, corporate functions, etc.; not toward music consumers and
> "Record" store patronage. This contest, the Boston Music Awards, grants
> recognition and awards to those artists that receive nominations based
> Records" etc. Now, there's no way that "Eye 2 Eye" would ever win if this
> understood routine were adheared to. The contest hasn't regulated this
> because--I'd speculate--the award show's sponsors have no idea that their
> standard procedures for determining a winner are being circumvented by the
> ICC. For three years now, the BCC has been exploiting this dishonest
> practice, and advertising the results at every opportunity--to bolster the
> Sunday "quota" of potential recruits, or other ostensibly "secular"
> activities the BCC conducts to lure unsuspecting enlistees.
>
> The first time this happened, most ICC members--including myself--welcomed
> the "win" as auspicious good fortune/god blessing our ministry, etc. The
> second time around, members began to raise their eyebrows when staff-members
> were asked to hand out xeroxed copies of the official ballot entry to members
> during midweek services. Not only were they handed out, but members were
> asked to vote for "Eye 2 Eye", fill in the appropriate boxes on the ballot,
> masse--as if they were achieved under ordinary circumstances the way other
> enties would be. This overt impropriety awakened the normally docile BCC
> membership, and inspired a short-lived, but assiduously discussed "KingdomNet
> Newsgroup" dialogue. This hotly-debated polemic grew over the course of
> three or four days, until a certain unnamed GSL chimed in and unilaterally
> suspended all conversation regarding the matter, articulately expressing his
> paranoia that "critics might be listening". Even more peculiar, was the fact
> that this GSL hadn't participated in the discussion at all during its initial
> moments, but instead, broadcast his moratorium beginning with the phrase,
> "I've been *monitoring* this conversation for some time now...".
>
> After that, no one said a word, and conspicuously changed the subject.
>
> Now that's power!
Since I left the organization, "Eye 2 Eye" has gone on win a third time, and
although I applaud their musical efforts with deference, I am acutely
disconcerted that they achieved their award with such impropriety, and will
no doubt exploit this dishonest accolade to achieve ICC recruiting goals, as
they have in the past.
I'm surprised this post hasn't generated more substantial discussion--there
are some very interesting topics encapsulated in the aforementioned.
--ICC Nepotism--or "Divine Dishonesty"/ends justify the means etc. i.e., the
ethics of hedging/ignoring/defying & breaking "secular" rules and regulations
in order to achieve a "godly" outcome.
--The marketing of ICC publications [DPI/DMI etc.] as a self-contained
system. Are these materials being commodified for strictly ICC consumption,
because (A) of their abstruse subject matter i.e., these products are
comprehensible only by other ICC members, or (B) self contained marketing
systems prevent large-scale public scrutiny of ICC documents, potentially
uncovering inconsistencies and/or dishonest scholarship, or (C) "worldly"
more mainstream christian booksellers refuse to carry ICC publications based
on the ICC's spurious reputation as a religious organization?
--The systemic and enumerated information control exercised on newsgroups
limited to ICC membership only, such as "KingdomNet".
--The absence of disclosing budget details regarding "extra-organizational"
expenditures such as bank-rolling/subsidizing DPI, DMI, HOPE, etc. Inclusive
in this statement is the ostensible policy shift the ICC has taken toward
financial disclosure. It's silently evolved from an "open book" policy, to
extremely limited disclosure, to deliberately vague disclosure to "members
only", etc.
kcstarr
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 12:09:14 -0600, mme...@hotmail.com wrote:
>In article <6g3o2a$rdu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> mme...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snippage>
Highly interesting. I wish that Fred McConnell would read this and
comment. He was involved in the DC music ministry rather heavily and
is now in a band that is getting some good play.
>
>Since I left the organization, "Eye 2 Eye" has gone on win a third time, and
>although I applaud their musical efforts with deference, I am acutely
>disconcerted that they achieved their award with such impropriety, and will
>no doubt exploit this dishonest accolade to achieve ICC recruiting goals, as
>they have in the past.
>
>I'm surprised this post hasn't generated more substantial discussion--there
>are some very interesting topics encapsulated in the aforementioned.
Everyone's too interested in eating Reese's.
>
>--ICC Nepotism--or "Divine Dishonesty"/ends justify the means etc. i.e., the
>ethics of hedging/ignoring/defying & breaking "secular" rules and regulations
>in order to achieve a "godly" outcome.
Gee, like we never see that at all. I guess the glamour of having
"award-winning" is worth stuffing the ballot boxes.
>
>--The marketing of ICC publications [DPI/DMI etc.] as a self-contained
>system. Are these materials being commodified for strictly ICC consumption,
>because (A) of their abstruse subject matter i.e., these products are
>comprehensible only by other ICC members, or (B) self contained marketing
>systems prevent large-scale public scrutiny of ICC documents, potentially
>uncovering inconsistencies and/or dishonest scholarship, or (C) "worldly"
>more mainstream christian booksellers refuse to carry ICC publications based
>on the ICC's spurious reputation as a religious organization?
I think it's more a limited interest group. I've ordered things from
DPI and had no problems, even though I haven't been a member for
years. I wanted to see what Gordon Ferguson had to say in his
"Discipling" book. SOS unfortunately.
>
>--The systemic and enumerated information control exercised on newsgroups
>limited to ICC membership only, such as "KingdomNet".
Now *that* is a subject I would love to talk more about. I find it
interesting that the ICC would not only provide an "acceptable" use
for the internet for their members, but would so arduously monitor it
and make sure that the topics are acceptable.
>
>--The absence of disclosing budget details regarding "extra-organizational"
>expenditures such as bank-rolling/subsidizing DPI, DMI, HOPE, etc. Inclusive
>in this statement is the ostensible policy shift the ICC has taken toward
>financial disclosure. It's silently evolved from an "open book" policy, to
>extremely limited disclosure, to deliberately vague disclosure to "members
>only", etc.
Unfortunately I think that has been SOP for quite a while. In theory,
their financials should be available on request. In reality, I would
think it would take a subpoena and a court order to get them. One of
these days someone will file suit & petition for class, and all hell
will break loose.
It will be interesting when that happens, as inevitably it will.
kim
"Just a speedbump on the information superhighway."
sba...@internetmci.com
In article <352ac206...@news.qni.com>,
kcstarr...@qni.die.spam.com (kcstarr) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 12:09:14 -0600, mme...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Since I left the organization, "Eye 2 Eye" has gone on win a third time, and
> >although I applaud their musical efforts with deference, I am acutely
> >disconcerted that they achieved their award with such impropriety, and will
> >no doubt exploit this dishonest accolade to achieve ICC recruiting goals, as
> >they have in the past.
> >--ICC Nepotism--or "Divine Dishonesty"/ends justify the means etc. i.e., the
> >ethics of hedging/ignoring/defying & breaking "secular" rules and regulations
> >in order to achieve a "godly" outcome.
>
> Gee, like we never see that at all. I guess the glamour of having
> "award-winning" is worth stuffing the ballot boxes.
I have a copy of a document printed from an ICC KNET thread dated Friday,
September 27, 1996. It reads:
"Once again, the Boston band of disciples, Eye 2 Eye has been nominated for
Best R&B Act in Boston by the Boston Music Awards folks! The ballots for the
Boston Music Awards are due TODAY. Spread the message around to other
brothers and sisters so that they can send intheir vote to support Eye 2 Eye!
To vote through the internet (and for more info about the awards):
http://www.bmawards.com/ Thanks! Sharon
I went to the website. It was interesting enough. I e-mailed asking about
voting rules, and was answered by <cav...@ultranet.com> "Bands are nominated
by a committee comprised of approximately 500 music industry
professionals...The winners are selected by a combination of a second
committee vote and a public vote. The votes are weighted 50/50."
I doubt the Eye 2 Eye band would win each year if not for the seemingly
required support of their fellow disciples. Is there anything that can be
done to expose this type of ICC game? Anyone in Boston want to pursue this
one?
> Everyone's too interested in eating Reese's
Everyone loves chocolate and peanut butter! :-)
Sarah
scha...@gold.tc.umn.edu
In article <6gfoa9$lfj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
I've heard from an evangelist about his campus ministry joining a student
organization and eventually taking it over because all the ICC members vote
the other ICC members into office. After a while, it consisted of only ICC
members. Sounds quite similar to this.
Steve
sco...@stratos.net
In article <6gg46n$4f9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
scha...@gold.tc.umn.edu wrote:
>
> I've heard from an evangelist about his campus ministry joining a student
> organization and eventually taking it over because all the ICC members vote
> the other ICC members into office. After a while, it consisted of only ICC
> members. Sounds quite similar to this.
This can and *has* happened in churches. Not by the ICC to my knowledge, but
it has occured. Be alert.