Jim and Susan Condon
Geoff Fawcett
This posting is on behalf of the International Churches of Christ:
In view of Jim and Sue Condon's present thinking and their recent post
to this newsgroup, they are no longer considered to be marked by the
International Churches of Christ.
Condon's recent post copied here:
>For the sake of harmony in our family, we
>agree not to try to pull anyone out of the
>International Church of Christ under any circumstances.
>
>From this day forward we retract any
> permission to use or distribute the Sue Condon
> Diary, also known as “The Emperor's New
>Clothes”.
>
>Jim and Susan Condon
Chris Garland
Geoff Fawcett wrote:
>
> This posting is on behalf of the International Churches of Christ:
>
> In view of Jim and Sue Condon's present thinking and their recent post
> to this newsgroup, they are no longer considered to be marked by the
> International Churches of Christ.
And who, exactly, are you? If you are an ICC leader (which I highly
doubt), why would you post this to the newsgroup? If you are not an ICC
leader, well...buzz off. We're dealing with serious issues here and
don't have time for nonsense.
> Condon's recent post copied here:
> >For the sake of harmony in our family, we
> >agree not to try to pull anyone out of the
> >International Church of Christ under any circumstances.
> >
> >From this day forward we retract any
> > permission to use or distribute the Sue Condon
> > Diary, also known as “The Emperor's New
> >Clothes”.
> >
> >Jim and Susan Condon
--
It flows through all things
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things. --Tao Te Ching
kkr...@naic.org
In article <33013E...@mail.idt.net>,
Chris Garland <chr...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
> Geoff Fawcett wrote:
> >
> > This posting is on behalf of the International Churches of Christ:
> >
> > In view of Jim and Sue Condon's present thinking and their recent post
> > to this newsgroup, they are no longer considered to be marked by the
> > International Churches of Christ.
>
> And who, exactly, are you? If you are an ICC leader (which I highly
> doubt), why would you post this to the newsgroup? If you are not an ICC
> leader, well...buzz off. We're dealing with serious issues here and
> don't have time for nonsense.
Unfortunately, Chris, I tend to accept this post as authentic unless
shown otherwise. Both Sarah Bauer and Catherine have confirmed the
authenticity of the Condon's post and wishes. I had heard rumors of
something along these lines while I was studying recently. The Condons'
children had nothing to do with them unless they did something along
these lines.
I feel very sorry for *all* the Condons. I am angry that a "church"
would resort to this type of emotional blackmail. It does show how
desperate the ICC is to protect its image.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
dande...@aol.com
>For the sake of harmony in our family, we
>agree not to try to pull anyone out of the
>International Church of Christ under any
>circumstances.
>
>From this day forward we retract any
>permission to use or distribute the Sue Condon
>Diary, also known as "The Emperor's New
>Clothes".
>
>Jim and Susan Condon
Then in article <3300F4...@earthlink.net>, Geoff Fawcett <gfaw...@earthlink.net> writes:
>This posting is on behalf of the International Churches of Christ:
>
>In view of Jim and Sue Condon's present thinking and their recent post
>to this newsgroup, they are no longer considered to be marked by the
>International Churches of Christ.
In response, in article <33013E...@mail.idt.net>, Chris Garland <chr...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>And who, exactly, are you? If you are an ICC leader (which I highly
>doubt), why would you post this to the newsgroup? If you are not an ICC
>leader, well...buzz off. We're dealing with serious issues here and
>don't have time for nonsense.
Chris, I wish this were a joke, but apparently it's the real deal.
It's the Condon's making a concession to the ICC so that the ICC will remove the "marking" placed on them. Since Jim & Sue still have family members in the ICC, they've apparently done this to keep peace in the family (imagine the problems with being considered "marked" by members of your own family...)
Certainly, the Condons can't be blamed. They've courageously stood up to the ICC juggernaut in the past. They were once highly effective leaders who stood up for what was right, and were kicked out of the Movement and marked. Sue's diary tells the story in a way that has helped many people to see the "other side" of the ICC.
Now the ICC is apparently willing to *trade* the Condon's "marking" for withdrawal of Sue's diary from public distribution. If anyone still doubts that the ICC practices unethical information control, *pay attention*: Here's proof right on the Newsgroup.
------>Dave Anderson
Chris Garland
Let the world see first hand the manipulation of the ICC. Evidently,
The Condon's children weren't allowed to speak to them unless they
did this. Anyone out doubt the ICC is a cult?? Look at this nonsense!
Catherine Hampton
What Dave said. :(
Catherine
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>
=========================================================
RESEARCH * EXAMINE * VERIFY * EDUCATE * ASSIST * LIBERATE
in...@reveal.org (autoresponder) * http://www.reveal.org
Benjamin Raymond
Geoff Fawcett <gfaw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>This posting is on behalf of the International Churches of Christ:
>
>In view of Jim and Sue Condon's present thinking and their recent post
>to this newsgroup, they are no longer considered to be marked by the
>International Churches of Christ.
Well knock me down!!
And who, with all due respect, might you be?
To the very best of my knowledge, the Condons were marked publicly in
Nashville, with the final word apparenty having come down through Kip.
May we hear it from the horse's mouth?
Sincerely, in Christ,
Benjamin Raymond
Catherine Hampton
Jani A Heinonen (jzhe...@rock.helsinki.fi) wrote:
: On 12 Feb 1997 dande...@aol.com wrote:
: > Now the ICC is apparently willing to *trade* the Condon's "marking" for
: > withdrawal of Sue's diary from public distribution. If anyone still
: > doubts that the ICC practices unethical information control, *pay
: > attention*: Here's proof right on the Newsgroup.
: I hope that their unmarking helps to undo some of the damage that this
: so-called church has inflicted upon the Condon family. Anyways, I don't
: see how this action helps to improve the ICC's image, like they had any
: to save anymore. That spiritual concentration camp produces so many
: refugees, many of whom are willing to speak up, that one diary removed
: from distribution does not make a difference.
Of course it doesn't, Jani. I don't think any of us were worried about
that. I am worried about the Condons -- I don't think this is going to
bring them the peace they wanted, although I hope it does. I just hate
seeing people used -- which is what my opposition to the ICC comes down
to. I have plenty of theological differences with the mainline Churches
of Christ, but I wouldn't spend time and energy actively opposing them.
I don't feel they are a threat to the ability of their own members and
others to think for themselves and learn from their mistakes. This
freedom is a bigger matter than anyone who hasn't lost it can realize.
:(
Jacqueline
I feel that the ultimatum given the Condons by the ICC is indicative of two things:
1) The ICC has the power (albeit abuse of power) to use family ties as a leverage... I'm
sure they knew that it would hit Jim and Sue where it hurts. I'm sure those who have
never been in the Condon's shoes would say, "Ooh... looks like they sold out!", but I'm
sure reconciliation with their family, when push came to shove, meant more to the
Condons than a chance to expose the ICC. But what does this solve? If the Condons have
no intention of re-affiliating themselves with the ICC, their relationship with their
ICC relatives will never be the same, anyway!
2) Deep down inside, I think the ICC is afraid of the bad publicity the Condon diary
would bring to the organization. I read the diary, and Sue documents things so
specifically that the allegations do not appear to be idle slander. This scares the ICC,
where anyone else would say, "Well, we may not like this, but these people have a
Constitutional right to free speech, so let 'em do their thing...".
ov...@aol.com
Hmmmmm......is this proof that this newsgroup is being *monitored* by
you-know-who?
How did *this* newsgroup become the world-wide forum for communication
from the ICC to the world?
Interesting. Very interesting. What are the chances of Mr. Fawcett
answering some questions about ICC doctrines and practices?
Martin Hinves
bray...@sea.ar.ispnet.com (Benjamin Raymond) wrote:
>Geoff Fawcett <gfaw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Well knock me down!!
Run that by me again number one... I appear to to have missed
something here !!!!
Martin "Why am I confused" HInves
UBI SOLITUDINEM FACIUNT PACEM APELLANT
They create desolation and call it peace
NULLUS TESTIS RELINQUO
Leave no witnesses
bauer
F. Gregory Shaheen <fg...@aol.com> wrote in article
<01bc1945$2f4acb80$eb2374cf@Gregory>...
> dande...@aol.com wrote in article
> > Now the ICC is apparently willing to *trade* the Condon's "marking" for
> withdrawal of Sue's diary from public distribution. If anyone still
doubts
> that the ICC practices unethical information control, *pay attention*:
> Here's proof right on the Newsgroup.
Where did the information about the Condon's marking
being dropped come from?
Sarah
bauer
Chris Garland <chr...@mail.idt.net> wrote in article
<33029A...@mail.idt.net>...
> Let the world see first hand the manipulation of the ICC. Evidently,
> The Condon's children weren't allowed to speak to them unless they
> did this. Anyone out doubt the ICC is a cult?? Look at this nonsense!
There seems to be some rumor to Jim's request.
The Condon children, who are still members within the
ICC, had not totally withdrawn communication from their
parents. The Condon children were allowed to speak to
their parents. They were allowed to visit as well.
I think we should be careful not to assume anything
about the Condon's reasons for withdrawing Sue's
journal from public consumption.
I believe the Condons made it very clear as to their
reason on the original post..."for the sake of harmony."
The Condons are trying to keep peace within their
family, and as they now have grandchildren, they want
to promote harmony.
Sarah
Catherine Hampton
ov...@aol.com wrote:
: Hmmmmm......is this proof that this newsgroup is being *monitored* by
: you-know-who?
Oh, we knew that already. Word has gotten back about some splendid
temper tantrums.... <wry grin>
: Interesting. Very interesting. What are the chances of Mr. Fawcett
: answering some questions about ICC doctrines and practices?
Probably about the same as the chances of my winning the California
lottery this week -- theoretically possible (if someone gives me a
ticket), but so unlikely it probably qualifies as an Aristotelian
"improbable possibility. (Aristotle felt that an outright impossibility
was more likely to happen than some improbabilities.) :>
Chris Garland
Sarah, you are completely right. I stand corrected. Jim, Sue and ICC (if you are out
there) please accept my apologies for jumping to this conclusion.
Nick Finney
bauer wrote:
>
> Where did the information about the Condon's marking
> being dropped come from?
>
> Sarah
This was the text of the initial post:
"Geoff Fawcett <gfaw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
This posting is on behalf of the International Churches of Christ:
In view of Jim and Sue Condon's present thinking and their recent post
to this newsgroup, they are no longer considered to be marked by the
International Churches of Christ."
--
Nick Finney
nfi...@earthlink.net
"Ya see its not the speed that kills son its the sudden stop"
ov...@aol.com
>Oh, we knew that already. Word has gotten back about some splendid
>temper tantrums.... <wry grin>
Realy??? Which posts caused these tantrums?
Gintas Jazbutis
In article <3300F4...@earthlink.net>, Geoff Fawcett <gfaw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>This posting is on behalf of the International Churches of Christ:
>
>In view of Jim and Sue Condon's present thinking and their recent post
>to this newsgroup, they are no longer considered to be marked by the
>International Churches of Christ.
>
>
Sorry, Mark Davis, markings are not transferable...
Gintas
|-----------------------------
|
| Gintas Jazbutis
| gin...@concentric.net
|
Gintas Jazbutis
In article <19970214013...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ov...@aol.com wrote:
>Hmmmmm......is this proof that this newsgroup is being *monitored* by
>you-know-who?
>
>from the ICC to the world?
>
>answering some questions about ICC doctrines and practices?
>
We have a member regularly posting here (Roger), but
he never answers any questions directly.
Gintas Jazbutis
In article <3302523...@news.zippo.com>, bray...@sea.ar.ispnet.com wrote:
>Geoff Fawcett <gfaw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>This posting is on behalf of the International Churches of Christ:
>>
>>In view of Jim and Sue Condon's present thinking and their recent post
>>to this newsgroup, they are no longer considered to be marked by the
>>International Churches of Christ.
>
>
>And who, with all due respect, might you be?
>
>To the very best of my knowledge, the Condons were marked publicly in
>Nashville, with the final word apparenty having come down through Kip.
>
>May we hear it from the horse's mouth?
>
>Sincerely, in Christ,
>Benjamin Raymond
Well, if Geoff Fawcett can remove a Kip-marking, then
I can give one! Mark Davis, you are now marked.
Your welcome.
Jim Condon
ov...@aol.com wrote:
Hmmmmm......is this proof that this newsgroup is being *monitored*
byyou-know-who?
How did *this* newsgroup become the world-wide forum for communication
from the ICC to the world?
Interesting. Very interesting. What are the chances of Mr. Fawcett
answering some questions about ICC doctrines and practices?
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
OK, OK. This whole deal never happened. Perhaps you are experiencing
the ease of manipulation even now.
Unofficially, I officially condemn the ICC and all of its teaching as
heretical. Now Sue and I can rest.
Man, the internet can be a blast!!! Get out there and live real lives,
folks!
Gintas Jazbutis
>
>OK, OK. This whole deal never happened. Perhaps you are experiencing
>the ease of manipulation even now.
>
>Unofficially, I officially condemn the ICC and all of its teaching as
>heretical. Now Sue and I can rest.
>
>Man, the internet can be a blast!!! Get out there and live real lives,
>folks!
What is Jim Condon doing with an e-mail address "icc.org"?
Sounds peculiar to me.
Gintas
|-------------------------------------
|
| Gintas Jazbutis
| gin...@concentric.net
| http://www.concentric.net/~gintas
|
|-------------------------------------
Benjamin Raymond
Folks, this is a bogus post if I've ever seen one.
JCv...@icc.org ??? Come on...
Will the real Jim Condon please stand up!
I'm sorry, but this is totally rude, especially considering the
Condons present situation and the importance of their public actions
as seen by the ICC leadership.
in Christ,
Ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jim Condon" <JCv...@icc.org> wrote:
>ov...@aol.com wrote:
>
>Hmmmmm......is this proof that this newsgroup is being *monitored*
>byyou-know-who?
>
>How did *this* newsgroup become the world-wide forum for communication
>from the ICC to the world?
>
>Interesting. Very interesting. What are the chances of Mr. Fawcett
>answering some questions about ICC doctrines and practices?
>_________________________________________________________
>_________________________________________________________
>
Catherine Hampton
Jim Condon (JCv...@icc.org) wrote:
This, on the other hand, is defnintely fraudulent. <wry grin> I checked
the headers, and it was sent by someone at Cybercom. Happy guessing. ;>
(By the way, the domain icc.org doesn't belong to the ICC. Here's
the record.)
whois icc.org
Internet Chamber of Commerce (ICC3-DOM)
5766 Central Ave.
Boulder, CO 80301
US
Domain Name: ICC.ORG
Administrative Contact:
Morreale, Herbert M. (HMM11) he...@XOR.COM
(303) 440-6093
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Else, Randall L. (RLE) ra...@XOR.COM
(303) 440-6093
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>, Webmaster
==================================================================
REVEAL: Research * Examine * Verify * Educate * Assist * Liberate
in...@reveal.org (REVEAL Autoresponder) http://www.reveal.org
JimV1959
c.c....@82.killspam.us.com (Catherine Hampton) wrote in
Date: 19 Feb 1997 01:08:21 GMT
Message-ID: <5edjq5$h...@samba.rahul.net>
>Jim Condon (JCv...@icc.org) wrote:
>This, on the other hand, is defnintely fraudulent. <wry grin> I checked
>the headers, and it was sent by someone at Cybercom. Happy guessing. ;>
>(By the way, the domain icc.org doesn't belong to the ICC. Here's
>the record.)
>whois icc.org
>Internet Chamber of Commerce (ICC3-DOM)
> 5766 Central Ave.
> Boulder, CO 80301
> US
> Domain Name: ICC.ORG
> Administrative Contact:
> Morreale, Herbert M. (HMM11) he...@XOR.COM
> (303) 440-6093
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Else, Randall L. (RLE) ra...@XOR.COM
> (303) 440-6093
>--
>Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>, Webmaster
Webmaster indeed! More like super cyber sleuth!
ov...@aol.com
In article <33090F...@icc.org>, Jim Condon <JCv...@icc.org> writes:
>
>OK, OK. This whole deal never happened. Perhaps you are experiencing
>the ease of manipulation even now.
Thanks for responding. Can you clarify the above statement
a little? I am not sure what you mean.
Thanks for speaking for yourself.
Catherine Hampton
F. Gregory Shaheen (FG...@aol.com) wrote:
: Catherine Hampton <c.c....@82.killspam.us.com> wrote in article
: > (By the way, the domain icc.org doesn't belong to the ICC. Here's
: > the record.)
: Good work Catherine...
Even better than you know -- the domain "icc.org" is apparently owned by
a couple of known spammers, or spam promoters. WHhich I'm not too
kind to find extremely funny, ;> although some ICC members certainly
deserve better. (Waving at Eoshiro.)
: Does the ICC not use the .com? Perhaps since they are a NFP group, they
: would want to be like all the others and change it to .org
The official ICC WWW page is at www.intlcc.com. I think this was a
mistake, though, due to the person who registered the domain not realizing
that the "org" designation was more appropriate. It costs $100.00 to
register a domain, and it is a =pain= to get a domain changed in all the
WWW search engine databases and on all the group's stationery and business
cards, so they probably are just living with it. And I don't blame them --
there are plenty of good reasons to criticize the ICC, but not this.
: Also, makes you wonder if perhaps an ICC member (or leader) was venting
: their frustration towards us in disguise
I doubt it. It isn't the ICC who's frustrated over this situation ---
they got what they want. :/
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>, Webmaster
ov...@aol.com
Martin Hinves
jimv...@aol.com (JimV1959) wrote:
>c.c....@82.killspam.us.com (Catherine Hampton) wrote in
>Date: 19 Feb 1997 01:08:21 GMT
>Message-ID: <5edjq5$h...@samba.rahul.net>
>>Jim Condon (JCv...@icc.org) wrote:
>>This, on the other hand, is defnintely fraudulent. <wry grin> I checked
>>the headers, and it was sent by someone at Cybercom. Happy guessing. ;>
>>(By the way, the domain icc.org doesn't belong to the ICC. Here's
>>the record.)
>>whois icc.org
>>Internet Chamber of Commerce (ICC3-DOM)
>> 5766 Central Ave.
>> Boulder, CO 80301
>> US
>> Domain Name: ICC.ORG
>> Administrative Contact:
>> Morreale, Herbert M. (HMM11) he...@XOR.COM
>> (303) 440-6093
>> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
>> Else, Randall L. (RLE) ra...@XOR.COM
>> (303) 440-6093
>>--
>>Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>, Webmaster
>Webmaster indeed! More like super cyber sleuth!
And now for your next mission... should you choose to accept it
what are the email addresses of some of the ICC leadership ?
Martin "I've always wanted to ask Kip about his "errors" in his
sermon" Hinves
Catherine Hampton
: And now for your next mission... should you choose to accept it
: what are the email addresses of some of the ICC leadership ?
Apparently, Al Baird is at alb...@ix.netcom.com. Maybe you could try
kipm...@ix.netcom.com? ;>
Seriously, I don't know and that's something I won't try to find out.
The only ones among the top leaders I ever knew well enough to talk to
out of the blue are Kip and Gordon Ferguson, and frankly I don't have
anything to say to either of them anymore. :(
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>, Webmaster
MuffyMuff
The icc posting of their website as http://www.intlcc.com is funded by the
tithepayers and givers of the special contributions in which is absolutely
compusive.
Sidney
R. L. Measures
In article <5edjq5$h...@samba.rahul.net>, c.c....@82.killspam.us.com
(Catherine Hampton) wrote:
> Jim Condon (JCv...@icc.org) wrote:
>
> This, on the other hand, is defnintely fraudulent. <wry grin> I checked
> the headers, and it was sent by someone at Cybercom. Happy guessing. ;>
>
> (By the way, the domain icc.org doesn't belong to the ICC. Here's
> the record.)
>
> whois icc.org
> Internet Chamber of Commerce (ICC3-DOM)
> 5766 Central Ave.
> Boulder, CO 80301
> US
...snip...
Thanks, Catherine.
It seems that ol' Kip could have come up with something a bit better than
a name whose initials tend to cause confusion. Long before the modern
discipling movement began in the early 70's there was the:
1. Indian Claims Commission.
2. International Chamber of Commerce.
3. Interstate Commerce Commission.
...and now there's the Internet Chamber of Commerce
What was wrong with "Boston Movement"? I know of no organization that
has the initials "BM". The "prophet" should have left well enough alone,
me thinks.
Can you imagine the confusion on Judgement Day if an announcement is made
that everybody who wasn't in the ICC is going to Hell. With at least five
ICCs, I think were talking donnybrook.
--
--Rich-- ag6k, 805-386-3734
Mark S. Murphy
R. L. Measures wrote:
> What was wrong with "Boston Movement"? I know of no organization that
> has the initials "BM". The "prophet" should have left well enough alone,
> me thinks.
Rich,
I have an idea of why not many groups exist with the initials "BM". I
remember several years ago (closer to twenty, actually) that my family
was driving through Missouri while on vacation. While searching the
radio dial for a good station, we stumbled on to one where the show was
giving updates on patients in the local hospital. To our shock, the
show gave rather personal information, including who had a "BM" that
day.
Really, who wants to have those initials??
Mark -----
Dave Everson
R. L. Measures wrote:
>
> In article <5edjq5$h...@samba.rahul.net>, c.c....@82.killspam.us.com
> (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
>
> > (By the way, the domain icc.org doesn't belong to the ICC. Here's
> > the record.)
> >
> > whois icc.org
> > Internet Chamber of Commerce (ICC3-DOM)
> > 5766 Central Ave.
> > Boulder, CO 80301
> > US
> ...snip...
> Thanks, Catherine.
> It seems that ol' Kip could have come up with something a bit better than
> has the initials "BM". The "prophet" should have left well enough alone,
> me thinks.
>
Rich,
Not that it's important, but Kip didn't choose the "ICC" name by himself. About (a big
about) 1992 some fellow who is supposed to be *the* authority on church growth (I'm not
making this up... really) announced that the Boston Movement had that year grown
(percentage-wise) more than any other church. He also stated that he would be reporting
the results of his annual findings using a different name for the Boston Movement group,
to "better describe them, with their now international scope". He said he would call
them the "International Church of Christ". The decision was made, we were told of the
change, boom!, we're the ICC.
Dave.
dj...@aol.com
In article <331952...@compuserve.com>, Dave Everson <71201...@compuserve.com> writes:
(Sun, 02 Mar 1997 02:13:40 -0800)
<snip>
>Not that it's important, but Kip didn't choose the "ICC" name by
>himself. About (a big about) 1992 some fellow who is supposed to
>be *the* authority on church growth (I'm not making this up... really)
>announced that the Boston Movement had that year grown
>(percentage-wise) more than any other church. He also stated
>that he would be reporting the results of his annual findings using
>a different name for the Boston Movement group, to "better
>describe them, with their now international scope". He said he
>would call them the "International Church of Christ". The decision
>was made, we were told of the change, boom!, we're the ICC.
FWIW, some readers might be interested in Kip and Elena's
announcement regarding the name change that they included in
correspondence to the "Lead Evangelists and Women's Ministry
Leaders Worldwide." (Poster's note: I have added an "'s" to "Women"
which was written in the original fax)
The McKean's faxed this message under the subject heading:
"New Name - International Churches of Christ," ("P. 01/01"), on
Thursday, 22 July 1993. Only the name change portion of this fax
follows:
"Since 1979, God's movement has been called by many names such
as - 'Boston Churches', Boston-Related Churches', 'Boston
Movement', 'Discipling Ministries' and 'Multiplying Ministries'. Dr.
John Vaughn, in his publication, Church Growth Today, has separately
listed the Boston family of churches from all other churches of Christ
and named us "International Churches of Christ (Boston Movement)'.
"In the spirit of the precedent set in Acts 11:26b of adopting the name
'Christian; from the world, we believe that using the name selected by
Dr. Vaughn to publicly refer to our fellowship as 'International Churches
of Christ' would be the best way to describe us so people would realize
there is a difference between us and the traditional churches of Christ.
Also the name 'Boston Movement' has only limited recognition outside
of our fellowship. We will always be indebted to the Boston Church
where God's Spirit initiated this modern-day church movement.
"Please announce and explain to our churches our new name
"International Churches of Christ'." . . . .
"cc: World Sector Administration
Upside Down Magazine"
Joanne
Derek W. Lee
Mark S. Murphy wrote:
>
> R. L. Measures wrote:
>
> > What was wrong with "Boston Movement"? I know of no organization that
> > has the initials "BM". The "prophet" should have left well enough alone,
> > me thinks.
>
> Rich,
>
> remember several years ago (closer to twenty, actually) that my family
> was driving through Missouri while on vacation. While searching the
> radio dial for a good station, we stumbled on to one where the show was
> giving updates on patients in the local hospital. To our shock, the
> show gave rather personal information, including who had a "BM" that
> day.
>
> Really, who wants to have those initials??
>
> Mark -----
Derek W. Lee (u30...@uicvm.uic.edu writes)
This church needs an ENEMA
Derek W. Lee
This church needs an ENEMA.
R. L. Measures
> R. L. Measures wrote:
> >
> > In article <5edjq5$h...@samba.rahul.net>, c.c....@82.killspam.us.com
> > (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
> >
> > > (By the way, the domain icc.org doesn't belong to the ICC. Here's
> > > the record.)
> > >
> > > whois icc.org
> > > Internet Chamber of Commerce (ICC3-DOM)
> > > 5766 Central Ave.
> > > Boulder, CO 80301
> > > US
> > ...snip...
> > Thanks, Catherine.
> > It seems that ol' Kip could have come up with something a bit better than
> > a name whose initials tend to cause confusion. Long before the
modern(snip)
> > What was wrong with "Boston Movement"? I know of no organization that
> > has the initials "BM". The "prophet" should have left well enough alone,
> > me thinks.
> >
>
> Rich,
>
> Not that it's important, but Kip didn't choose the "ICC" name by himself.
About (a big
> about) 1992 some fellow who is supposed to be *the* authority on church
growth (I'm not
> making this up... really)
Really, Dave, no veracity disclaimer is needed. I am quite familiar with
the modus operandi. of your 'org.'.
> announced that the Boston Movement had that year grown
> (percentage-wise) more than any other church. He also stated that he
would be reporting
> the results of his annual findings using a different name for the Boston
Movement group,
> to "better describe them, with their now international scope". He said
he would call
> them the "International Church of Christ". The decision was made, we
were told of the
> change, boom!, we're the ICC.
>
> Dave.
As I understand it, Dave, the name is "International Churches of
Christ"---not "International Church of Christ".
In the End, I suppose it won't really matter. Discipling Movement,
Crossroads Movement, Movement, God's Movement, Boston Movement, ICC, or
whatever, it's all pretty much the same unique doctrine and apparatchik
pyramid.
IMO, Real prophets don't abandon their spouses in hotel lobbies and run
away from news reporters.
In the End, I'm guessing that Mother Teresa and 'true christians' won't be
spending eternity in the same place. This was one thing the 'prophet'
probably got right.
--
--Rich-- ag6k, 805-386-3734
R. L. Measures
In article <331764...@ix.netcom.com>, "Mark S. Murphy"
<msmu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> R. L. Measures wrote:
>
>
> > What was wrong with "Boston Movement"? I know of no organization that
> > has the initials "BM". The "prophet" should have left well enough alone,
> > me thinks.
>
>
> Rich,
>
> I have an idea of why not many groups exist with the initials "BM". I
> remember several years ago (closer to twenty, actually) that my family
> was driving through Missouri while on vacation. While searching the
> radio dial for a good station, we stumbled on to one where the show was
> giving updates on patients in the local hospital. To our shock, the
> show gave rather personal information, including who had a "BM" that
> day.
>
> Really, who wants to have those initials??
>
> Mark -----
Feculence is but one meaning, Mark. BM also stands for Basal Metabolism.
I've been getting e-mail from those who think the initials 'BM' are
appropriate for Kip's sect--as well as being somewhat less confusing than
'ICC'.
--
--Rich-- ag6k, 805-386-3734
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
R. L. Measures (meas...@mail.vcnet.com) wrote:
: In article <5edjq5$h...@samba.rahul.net>, c.c....@82.killspam.us.com
: (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
: It seems that ol' Kip could have come up with something a bit better than
: a name whose initials tend to cause confusion. Long before the modern
I think that you owe "'ol Kip" an apology, since he did not come up with
"International Churches of Christ" or "ICC", but rather Dr. Vaughn came
up with International Churches of Christ and some rocket scientists at
NASA discovered the shorthand "ICC".
: Can you imagine the confusion on Judgement Day if an announcement is made
: that everybody who wasn't in the ICC is going to Hell. With at least five
: ICCs, I think were talking donnybrook.
Prayerfully, we'll be able to baptize all 15 members of the Indian Claims
Commission and so it won't be as confusing for everyone. :)
Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)