Am I Missing Something -- What Does the ICC Really Teach?
DJRTX
During the studies, I remember one "sister" saying you must *become* a
disciple before you can be baptized and be saved. The second "sister"
said she was taught you must *make a decision* to become a disciple before
you can be baptized and be saved.
At the next study, the second sister said the first sister was correct:
prior to baptism, you must *become a disciple,* not make a decision to
become one. Since then, I have heard or read the following:
1. "True restorations occurred as first century Bible doctrines were once
more rediscovered like -- Jesus baptizing only people who have *made the
decision* to be disciples . . . ." "Revolution Through Restoration" by
Kip McKean. "UpsideDown," August 1992;" reprinted 3 July, 1994.
2. "You are not going to find any Christians ever getting baptized in the
first century. They only baptized non-Christians. They baptized people
that *were* disciples, who wanted to be in the family of God." Nick Young
(Dallas-Ft.Worth evangelist), speaking in Tulsa in 1992.
3. "Once you *become* a disciple, then you can be baptized, but you cannot
be baptized until you *become* a disciple, and there's where, as far as I
know, the rest of the entire religious world has got it -- has got it all
messed up. I don't know of any religious group in this world that teaches
you *got to be a disciple* to be baptized. And yet that is what Jesus
said two thousand years ago. And it's as clear as any verse you're going
to read. [snip] . . . You must *become* a disciple to become a Christian
and to be baptized." Nick Young. (info same as above)
4. "Well, are the people in the International Churches of Christ the only
ones saved? We're the only ones that teach as we teach. But if someone
in another group, another church of Christ, or even a Baptist group or
whatever, picks up a Bible and they see the way of salvation: which you
gotta have faith in Jesus, Son of God; you gotta repent of all the sins;
you gotta come to a conviction Jesus died on the cross; you gotta turn to
Jesus, Lord of your life; you gotta *become* a disciple of Jesus; . . .
[snip] If they have done that, then they are a son or daughter of God.
Kip McKean, Indianapolis. 17 March 1994.
5. "When you preach who is really saved: that you gotta have faith, you
gotta repent, you gotta *become* a true disciple of Jesus, and then you
gotta be water immersed . . . that excludes all other denominations, . .
. everybody else that's out there." Kip McKean, "Preach the Word," August
1995.
6. My friend, Julie (not her real name), told me her discipler had said
Julie's non-ICC mother was saved. Her mother had neither *made a
decision* to be a disciple, nor *became* a disciple before baptism. I
said, "But that's not what is taught." Julie replied, "All I know is one
of the disciples I studied with said I shouldn't worry, my mother is
saved." (I do not believe she would have joined the ICC if she had been
told her mother was not saved. Could she have been told this because she
did not yet have the "faith" to handle it?) September 1995.
8. "The International Churches of Christ were built on the revolutionary
and biblical conviction that every person must first *make a decision* to
become a disciple and then be baptized." "A Church for All Nations . . .
The International Churches of Christ," web page, 21 March 1996.
Am I missing something? If I *made the decision* to become a doctor, I
still am not a doctor. There is much work/study for me to do first.
Likewise, if I *made a decision* to become a disciple, then I still am not
a disciple. There are things I would need to *do,* to *become* one.
Which is "the rediscovered doctrine" that allegedly is necessary for
salvation: you must *make a decision* to become a disciple, or you must
*become* one?
Joanne
DAnder9518
writes:
>Am I missing something? If I *made the decision* to become a doctor, I
>still am not a doctor. There is much work/study for me to do first.
>Likewise, if I *made a decision* to become a disciple, then I still am
not
>a disciple. There are things I would need to *do,* to *become* one.
>Which is "the rediscovered doctrine" that allegedly is necessary for
>salvation: you must *make a decision* to become a disciple, or you must
>*become* one?
Well, just my two cents. This issue has always been a little hazy: one
minute the requirement is to *become* a disciple, the next minute it is to
*make the decision* to become a disciple.
I would submit that the REAL teaching of the ICC is that you have to
*become* a disciple before baptism. But leaders will HEDGE on this issue
in a public forum to avoid controversy. Note that in material intended
for a wider audience (e.g. the written article Revolution thru Restoration
& the new Web Page), the "truth" is watered down for public consumption.
----->Dave Anderson
RICK & SARAH BAUER
<snip>
> Since then, I have heard or read the following:
>
> 1. "True restorations occurred as first century Bible doctrines were once
> more rediscovered like -- Jesus baptizing only people who have *made the
> decision* to be disciples . . . ." "Revolution Through Restoration" by
> Kip McKean. "UpsideDown," August 1992;" reprinted 3 July, 1994.
There is an original "Revolution Through Restoration ," (RTR,I)
which was also printed in "UpsideDown," in April, 1992. The one
Joanne quotes above is RTR,II. Did Kip's teaching about baptism
change in those two years? Are there contradictions in these two
documents? Are there contradictions within each document?
"...you cannot be saved and you cannot be a true Christian without
*being* a disciple..I taught that to be baptized, you must first
make the *decision to be* a disciple and then be baptized...(paragraph 17)
"Upon conviction of the Scriptures, most people in the Lexington (Boston)
church were rebaptized: Doug Arthur, Joyce (Crosby) Arthur, Lynne
(Hembree)Green, the Morehead family, the Foss family, the Crosby
family, and just before he arrived, Steve Johnson. Others like
Bob and Pat Gempel, Paul and Helen McNiel, Lisa Johnson, Chris
(Timmis) Fuqua, Jim Lloyd, Don Lee and Doug Blough were not rebaptized,
as they felt after studying the Word, their conversions were true."
(paragraph 17)
Lisa Johnson has been rebaptized at least a handful of times since
1979. Why does Kip misrepresent this to the members?
It would be interesting to have the actual dates of those folks
who were "rebaptized" after 1979. Why were the Bairds not mentioned
as rebaptisms?
"...discovered they had not been baptized *as* disciples..."(paragraph 30)
"During the initial weeks of this changeover each member was called to
renew their commitment at baptism to be a disciple of Jesus, to
be baptized *as* a disciple of Jesus, or to leave. (paragraph 31)
"...baptizing only people who have *made the decision to be* disciples..."
(paragrahp 46)
Which is it? Being a disciple is not the same as making the decision
to be a disciple.
Why are there contradictions? See Jerry Jones, "What Does The
Boston Movement Teach, Vol. III" for a full critique of the original
RTR. This book is made available through Jerry Jones or through
Freedom House Ministries.
Even previous to RTR I or II - Women's Retreat, Boston 1987 - Kip McKean
"We need to get it on straight, who is a candidate for baptism. It is
the individual who *is* a disciple."
Boston Bulletin - December 20, 1987 - Elena McKean - "Too few churches
call people to make the *decision to be disciples* at baptism."
Did Elena contradict Kip? :{
> 2. "You are not going to find any Christians ever getting baptized in the
> first century. They only baptized non-Christians. They baptized people
> that *were* disciples, who wanted to be in the family of God." Nick Young
> (Dallas-Ft.Worth evangelist), speaking in Tulsa in 1992.
Kip McKean stated in RTR,I, "Many men who were leaders in the different
elements of the Churches of Christ, who came to train to build
churches of disciples, discovered they had not been baptized *as*
disciples themselves. In the world's eyes - they were rebaptized. In
God's eyes they were baptized into Christ. Of special note are Nick Young...
(list of names given)...Others were not rebaptized as they felt they
had *made the decision* to be disciples...." (paragraph 30)
BTW, Marty Wooten is on the list of people who were not "rebaptized,"
but Marty and Cathy Wooten were rebaptized in Boston, January, 1988.
Why does Kip misrepresent this to the members?
> 3. "Once you *become* a disciple, then you can be baptized, but you cannot
> be baptized until you *become* a disciple, and there's where, as far as I
> know, the rest of the entire religious world has got it -- has got it all
> messed up. I don't know of any religious group in this world that teaches
> you *got to be a disciple* to be baptized. And yet that is what Jesus
> said two thousand years ago. And it's as clear as any verse you're going
> to read. [snip] . . . You must *become* a disciple to become a Christian
> and to be baptized." Nick Young. (info same as above)
> 4. "Well, are the people in the International Churches of Christ the only
> ones saved? We're the only ones that teach as we teach. But if someone
> in another group, another church of Christ, or even a Baptist group or
> whatever, picks up a Bible and they see the way of salvation: which you
> gotta have faith in Jesus, Son of God; you gotta repent of all the sins;
> you gotta come to a conviction Jesus died on the cross; you gotta turn to
> Jesus, Lord of your life; you gotta *become* a disciple of Jesus; . . .
> [snip] If they have done that, then they are a son or daughter of God.
> Kip McKean, Indianapolis. 17 March 1994.
RTR,I - April, 1992 - Kip McKean stated,
"I have never believed or taught that anyone has to be baptized into
the Boston Chruch of Christ (this was before the name changed to ICC)
to be saved...I do not know of any other church, group or movement that
teaches and practices what we teach as Jesus taught in MT. 28."
RTR,II - August, 1994 "Certainly to leave the family of God, the *true
church*, is to leave God..." Kip McKean
Boston Speech, "Our Needs" - January 20, 1985 - Kip McKean
"We can never compromise the issue of salvation - what it takes to
be saved. You have to have faith, repent, confess and be baptized.
That's just how it is."
This is what Kip believed and practiced until late 1986. This is
what Kip was taught and participated in in his own conversion at the
Crossroads church in 1972.
> 5. "When you preach who is really saved: that you gotta have faith, you
> gotta repent, you gotta *become* a true disciple of Jesus, and then you
> gotta be water immersed . . . that excludes all other denominations, . .
> .. everybody else that's out there." Kip McKean, "Preach the Word," August
> 1995.
<snip>
> 8. "The International Churches of Christ were built on the revolutionary
> and biblical conviction that every person must first *make a decision* to
> become a disciple and then be baptized." "A Church for All Nations . . .
> The International Churches of Christ," web page, 21 March 1996.
This is not what Kip taught in 1979 at the Lexington Church of Christ.
Kip did not begin to teach a "disciples baptism" until 1986. Take
note of his own words above in 1985.
Why all the contradictions?
Sarah
Carol2180
What about the teaching in the Bible Studies that
Christian = Disciple = Saved
And another teaching that before baptism we are an enemy of God?
And another teaching that baptism is what saves us.
Now if we must be a disciple in order to be baptized that means (if
Christian=Disciple=Saved) that we must be a Christian before we're
baptized and we must be saved before baptism. Ooops.
ATredway1
the mother wasn't a disciple then that person is wrong and should not be
using that as an emotional ploy to get someone into the ICC. Second, one
can only make the decision to become a disciple. Now realize that the
decision can't be based on I'll get around to it, later, or when I
stablize my life. If salvation is at stake on should start changing
immediately. The problem is with the translations of decisions and
becoming. It is assumed that the decision will lead to change
immediately. One doesn't have to do anything except make the changes
necessary to follow God. This might mean coming to Church, giving up
those porno magazines, praying, etc. You don't become a disciple until
after baptizm because its then that you're saved because how can one
become a follower until after they've been saved? (realize that baptizm is
regarded as part of what disciples do, it is not simply the end cerimony
of a process)
Clayton Lane
: You don't become a disciple until
: after baptizm because its then that you're saved because how can one
: become a follower until after they've been saved? (realize that baptizm is
: regarded as part of what disciples do, it is not simply the end cerimony
Wow, I think I could agree with you here Tony!! :) Very nice logic.
(There are a few differnces I have in the assumption, but no big deal.)
Please explain to me some things I don't quite understand:
(1) The ICC (Kip in RTR, for example) believes you have to be a disciple
*in order to be a candidate* for baptism. Roger stated this very clearly,
saying: ". . . you need to be a disciple to be a candidate for baptism :
(Matt 28:19)," word for word even.
(2) The ICC believes it is right to baptize only people who are disciples.
If you believe otherwise, that's cool. If you agree with both points, I
eagerly await your explaination. Thanks. -Clayton
Ovum
(ATredway1) writes:
> It is assumed that the decision will lead to change
>immediately. One doesn't have to do anything except make the changes
>necessary to follow God. This might mean coming to Church, giving up
>those porno magazines, praying, etc. You don't become a disciple until
>after baptizm because its then that you're saved because how can one
>become a follower until after they've been saved? (realize that baptizm
is
>regarded as part of what disciples do, it is not simply the end cerimony
>of a process)
>
>
One problem I see in this line of reasoning (one has to make changes such
as going to church, etc. before being eligible for baptism): it's not in
the Bible. I don't see the 3,000 doing anything outwardly on the day of
Pentecost except listening to the gospel message, asking what they needed
to do, and then getting baptised.
We can never "DO" anything to be acceptable to God except believe Him.
Baptism is the response of faith...we believe God's word that our sins
have separated us, and that He will remove our sin in baptism and give us
His Holy Spirit. Any "good works" we try to do on the way to the bapistry
is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
ATredway1
people seem to think that they can put everything off and get baptized
worrying about what to change later. This isn't the right mindset. There
is no trial period to see if the person is committed or not.
Keuhlen143
(ATredway1) writes:
But Tony, neither did he put any other pre-conditions on salvaton. If
people have to be disciples first have to be living the life in order for
baptism to occur, Then why did Jesus have to die for our Sins??? This
idea of putting baptism off until someone proves that they are a disciple
CHEAPENS THE DEATH OF MY LORD, and if you can't tell I'm a little hacked
about it.
If people are to be living the disciple's lifestyle, how does the ICC
explain all the problems in 1 corinthians? here was a church with
troubles but Paul never reconstructs it; never do we read of re-baptisms;
NOTHING! He basicly tells them to repent and in one case to expel an
immoral (sexually) brother. And only if he would not repent.
Show me book chapter&verse that states what the mind-set of someone about
to be baptised is please? Not Kips ideas but rather the raw scripture.
Make me a believer...help me in my unbelief. Or repent .
In the BLOOD of Jesus
Joe
Clayton Lane
: My point is to do what Jesus asked, immediately and whole-heartedly. Some
: people seem to think that they can put everything off and get baptized
: worrying about what to change later. This isn't the right mindset. There
: is no trial period to see if the person is committed or not.
I studied with a particular person almost to baptism. He asked to be
baptized one night. Quietly excited, my discipler & I went to our leaders
to ask their permission. In the end, we said "no". The reason was that
this person: (1) hadn't finished our study series yet (I wondered why we
didn't just go on with it right there!) and (2) had not yet shown his
loyalty to the church in successive deeds. In other words, we required
that he show his repentance through action first, to prove his repentance.
THEN we would baptize him. I believe this example is in contrast your
last statement. Before baptism, there was a definite trial period to see
whether the person was committed, in most cases.
In fact, our lead evangelist did not give out "membership" forms to anyone
until a full week or two after baptism, so that if the person left soon
after joining, the church wouldn't have an extra "fall away" to report.
Thus, AFTER baptism, there was also a definite trial period to see whether
a person was committed.
Clayton
DAnder9518
Chris Garland & I went to down to Madison Square Garden yesterday to watch
the most-attended worship service in the history of the Movment (16,000+
according to Steve Johnson). Members from Boston, Washington D.C.,
Buffalo & Syracuse were "encouraged" to come to New York for this service.
Here is a partial summary of events:
I. Manhattan zone leader Sam Powell started off by introducing his "best
friend," World Sector leader Steve Johnson. Then Steve in turn introduced
Doug Arthur as *his* best friend. I like to call this "Passing the
Friendship Baton" (has anyone else ever noticed this unique ICC
phenomenon?)
II. Doug Arthur then proceeded to talk about the new adoption ministry,
saying that "God has a heart for adoption." He announced that the church
has donated $200,000 to an adoption charity to allow ministry couples to
adopt children. It was unclear whether the adopting couples are ICC
leaders, or ICC married couples who are part of the "adoption ministry".
He said 100 children have been adopted so far. Doug called Randy Tinnin
on stage (the Brooklyn/Long Island zone leader) and presented him with his
new adopted child: "I give you your new daughter _____" (note: this
"presentation" really bothered Chris!)
At the end of what Doug Arthur called the "adoption ceremonies", he called
step-dad Bob Gempel up to say a prayer.
(Note: If anyone can clarify more about this adoption ministry, please do
so. It would seem inappropriate if ICC member contributions are being
used to defray adoption costs for ICC leaders, and/or other ICC married
couples.)
III. After some spirited music, Randy McKean came up to deliver what
was, honestly, the most *bizarre* communion meditation I have ever heard.
Except for brief prayers for the bread/juice, there was no real mention of
Jesus' sacrifice -- everything was about the "kingdom". Randy even
brought his son out to say a few words, including the not-so-objective
statement: "Life in the Kingdom is much better than it is in the world,
and that's all there is to it." Just as Chris & I were about to partake
of the juice, an intense standing ovation broke out for one of the musical
numbers. The emphasis seemed to be on the *show*, not the worship.
IV. Ten people were "baptized into 'The Lord's Church'", including one
person from the teen ministry, and another person baptizing their mother.
V. To our disappointment, Steve Johnson came on to speak in place of Kip
McKean, who had been scheduled. Steve preached about being "close to
Jesus" by being a servant. Chris commented later that Steve's message in
itself was fine, and that any outsider would have found it agreeable. The
problem, Chris pointed out, is knowing the real implications behind the
message -- that no one else outside the ICC is saved, and that members
need to be "servants" by getting everyone else into the ICC.
Early in his sermon, Steve observed that some people call the
International Churches of Christ a cult. He said that what really
separated the ICC from everyone else, is that they teach that you must
become a disciple, and then get baptized. Of course, this is nothing new
-- it's the defining doctrine of the Movement. But it's not every day
that a World Sector leader says it publicly.
These are just my impressions of the service. All in all, it was an
amazingly well-orchestrated event. But it left me feeling spiritually
*cold*. . .
---->Dave
Scott W. Schreiber
dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>Members from Boston, Washington D.C.,
>Buffalo & Syracuse were "encouraged" to come to New York for this service.
There was at least 1 busload of folks from Norfolk there too.
> III. After some spirited music, Randy McKean came up to deliver what
>was, honestly, the most *bizarre* communion meditation I have ever heard.
>Except for brief prayers for the bread/juice, there was no real mention of
>Jesus' sacrifice -- everything was about the "kingdom".
Sounds like Kip's first ten minutes in Manila. This seems to be the
recurring pattern, which makes sense when you must justify your
spirituality with your works. The ICC is the most works based thing I
have ever seen.
DJRTX
Here's an adaptation for this newsgroup of something I heard a while back:
Cory COC, Brad Baptist, and Irene ICC: "You Presbyterians, Lutherans,
Catholics and the like have got it ALL WRONG! This sprinkling stuff
doesn't count. You gotta immerse 'em!!!"
Phil Presbyterian, Luke Lutheran, and Ron Roman Catholic: "So you're
telling me you believe if a guy only gets wet up to his knees, THAT'S NOT
ENOUGH???"
Cory COC, Brad Baptist, and Irene ICC: "Of course not!"
Phil Presbyterian, Luke Lutheran, and Ron Roman Catholic: "Well, what
about up to the waist???"
Cory COC, Brad Baptist, and Irene ICC: "No way."
Phil Presbyterian, Luke Lutheran, and Ron Roman Catholic: "Then, what
about just up to the neck.???"
Cory COC, Brad Baptist, and Irene ICC: "No, man! He's got to be ALL of the
way under!"
Phil Presbyterian, Luke Lutheran, and Ron Roman Catholic: "So what you're
*really* saying is: It's the top of the head that REALLY matters! Hey,
that's the part we do!!!"
Joanne
[a "dunker" by belief and preference :-)]
Chris Garland
I'd like to post some of my impressions of the service:
First, I was greatly taken aback by the lack of mention of Christ during
communion. I found this disturbing, because Jesus tells us to "do this in
memory of ME." Instead, the communion service was a back-slapping
arent-we-a-wonderful-church kind of message. Quite disturbing,
considering the suffering of Christ.
Secondly, the whole atmosphere lacked any reverence for God. It seems the
ICC has forgotten we have a holy God who deserves honor and respect. I
say this because a large number of members got up during the service and
returned from the concession stands with pizza, pretzels, soda, potato
chips, etc., which they passed out among themselves and consumed during
the "worship" service. I thought I was at the circus.
The singing was wonderful, as usual. Particularly impressive was the
native African dance/song at the conclusion.
I found disturbing that the church took the authority to "give" a child
to a family that had spent the money to adopt her (albeit, subsidized by
members). Particularly disturbing to me was the term used by Doug Arthur
"We are *officially* giving this child to you." Officially?? Meaning
what? No adoptions outside the ICC are recognized? Sounded strange.
To an outsider, Steve Johnson's message would appear benign and good.
However, we all know that a "Worship Service" is NOT the ICC -- the real
ICC lies behind the daily contact -- the discipling partners and zone
leaders "persuading" and "advising" every area of ones life. Funny how
none of these things were mentioned in the service. The service is a show
designed to impress visitors, who are then blindsided by the reality of
the ICC they never got to see when they become a member (and even after
-- I've heard reports of others beside myself who never heard of
discipling partners until AFTER we were baptized.) Roger says, "stop
listening to the critics -- come out to a service and see for yourself."
I say, that's misleading, Roger. The Service isn't the ICC -- its a show.
The ICC doesn't reveal itself (deliberately) until a person is already
sucked in.
Chris Garland
I almost forgot to mention Steve Johnson's creative statistics!
He claimed that the NYCOC is now "the largest congregation in the North
East."
Wow.
Sounds impressive, doesn't it?
Reality Check. I'm picking on the Catholics, because thats who I know. If
you put all of the Catholics together in one place from the same
geographic area the NYCCC covers, you'd have well over a million people.
THAT sounds to me like the largest congregration in the North East.
You can package statistics to say whatever you want. How creative of
Johnson to fail to mention in the footnotes that his statistics only hold
true if we're talking about a group meeting all together at once.
Personally, I believe that all the Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans,
Orthodox, etc., that meet for various Sunday services ARE meeting
together as the Lord's Church to worship Him.
Jan Sloan
DAnder9518 wrote:
>
> Chris Garland & I went to down to Madison Square Garden yesterday to watch
> the most-attended worship service in the history of the Movment (16,000+
> Buffalo & Syracuse were "encouraged" to come to New York for this service. ....
>
> snipped some of the summary
> II. Doug Arthur then proceeded to talk about the new adoption ministry,
> saying that "God has a heart for adoption." He announced that the church
> has donated $200,000 to an adoption charity to allow ministry couples to
> adopt children. It was unclear whether the adopting couples are ICC
> leaders, or ICC married couples who are part of the "adoption ministry".
> He said 100 children have been adopted so far. Doug called Randy Tinnin
> on stage (the Brooklyn/Long Island zone leader) and presented him with his
> new adopted child: "I give you your new daughter _____" (note: this
> "presentation" really bothered Chris!)
>
> At the end of what Doug Arthur called the "adoption ceremonies", he called
> step-dad Bob Gempel up to say a prayer.
>
> (Note: If anyone can clarify more about this adoption ministry, please do
> so. It would seem inappropriate if ICC member contributions are being
> used to defray adoption costs for ICC leaders, and/or other ICC married
> couples.)
( snip )
The whole ceremony (if you want to call it that) was to encourage others to adopt.
I know a few couples in the church who have adopted children over the past year. Three
of these couples are on staff in the church. I know one couple for sure who received
some (not full) financial help from the church. I see nothing wrong with that since it
helps a child who may not have had a chance to be raised in a Christian home. One of
the other staffers used family money to pay for adoption.
I have some close friends who are not paid by the church who are in the preliminary
adoption procedures right now. The church is helping them out with a portion of the
costs.
I see adoption as a positive thing and can't see why, Dave, you would think that there
was something wrong with the church footing some of the bill. Some employers encourage
adoption by footing some of the bill. Is that inappropriate also??
Jan Sloan
Catherine Hampton
{LOUD applause!}
I laughed out loud! Fortunately my boss wasn't around to ask what
I was reading. ;>
Catherine
karen liu
On 6 Aug 1996, Chris Garland wrote:
> I'd like to post some of my impressions of the service:
>
> First, I was greatly taken aback by the lack of mention of Christ during
> communion. I found this disturbing, because Jesus tells us to "do this in
> memory of ME." Instead, the communion service was a back-slapping
> arent-we-a-wonderful-church kind of message. Quite disturbing,
> considering the suffering of Christ.
hmm..i don't know about that but in toronto it is always about how we need
to remember jesus and how his death on the cross changed whoever's life
that is speaking, or how it affected that person who is doing the
communion, so i can't agree with you on that one
again, i'm not criticising the church in ny, but i am just here to share
with you what i have seen and heard while a part of the church in toronto,
which, if you were to criticise the icc, this would be evidence that it is
NOT icc doctrine or whatever you want to call it
> Secondly, the whole atmosphere lacked any reverence for God. It seems the
> ICC has forgotten we have a holy God who deserves honor and respect. I
> say this because a large number of members got up during the service and
> returned from the concession stands with pizza, pretzels, soda, potato
> chips, etc., which they passed out among themselves and consumed during
> the "worship" service. I thought I was at the circus.
>
again, since i was not there, but i know from experience that if the same
thing were to happen during the service, they would be corrected on their
lack of reverence to God....i know i have been corrected for talking
during service as a young christian
food during the service is something i have never seen before, even during
all day workshops..that's why there are fellowhip breaks! <grin>
i go back and study more alkyl halide reactions now..okay, i love you
byebye!! (mindy from buttons and mindy of animaniac fame)
karen
Raymond Tam
DAnder9518 (dande...@aol.com) wrote:
: Chris Garland & I went to down to Madison Square Garden yesterday to watch
: the most-attended worship service in the history of the Movment (16,000+
: II. Doug Arthur then proceeded to talk about the new adoption ministry,
: saying that "God has a heart for adoption." He announced that the church
: has donated $200,000 to an adoption charity to allow ministry couples to
: adopt children. It was unclear whether the adopting couples are ICC
: leaders, or ICC married couples who are part of the "adoption ministry".
: He said 100 children have been adopted so far. Doug called Randy Tinnin
: on stage (the Brooklyn/Long Island zone leader) and presented him with his
<snip>
I can't say much about how things are done in Boston, but in our "region"
in Los Angeles, we have allocated a small amount of money to help couples
adopt children. The amount is intended to help defray the cost of
adoption, not to pay for it altogether, because adoptions tend to be
pretty expensive. A couple does not need to be in the full-time
ministry. In our "region" (about 700), we have allocated money only for
one adoption. So far, no one has come forward.
I don't believe there's anything wrong with this. The Bible does command
us to take care of the orphans. For example, the HOPE orphanage in
Shanghai is getting more and more kids every day, and every one of the
children is a girl as a direct consequence of Chinese traditions and the
policies of the Chinese government. *No one* in China will adopt them.
The only people who will do so are overseas, and flying to China from the
U.S., for example, is not cheap.
If part of my money goes toward finding these children or any other
children a family and home, I'm all for it.
raymond
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide."
-Abraham Lincoln
Scott W. Schreiber
karen liu <e0fk...@credit.erin.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>hmm..i don't know about that but in toronto it is always about how we need
>to remember jesus and how his death on the cross changed whoever's life
>that is speaking,
This brings up an interesting thought. Here in Norfolk, I don't hear
a lot of what is talked about here on the NG in the big churches. I
don't know about size in Toronto, but I think that if the ICC could
keep the congregation size small, *some* of the abuses/problems might
not be there.....
Just a thought
Chris Garland
karen liu <e0fk...@credit.erin.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>On 6 Aug 1996, Chris Garland wrote:
>
>> I'd like to post some of my impressions of the service:
>>
>> First, I was greatly taken aback by the lack of mention of Christ during
>> communion. I found this disturbing, because Jesus tells us to "do this in
>> memory of ME." Instead, the communion service was a back-slapping
>> arent-we-a-wonderful-church kind of message. Quite disturbing,
>> considering the suffering of Christ.
>
>to remember jesus and how his death on the cross changed whoever's life
>communion, so i can't agree with you on that one
>again, i'm not criticising the church in ny, but i am just here to share
>with you what i have seen and heard while a part of the church in toronto,
>which, if you were to criticise the icc, this would be evidence that it is
>NOT icc doctrine or whatever you want to call it
Karen, judging by the fact that 3 world sector leaders were in attendance
(Steve Johnson, Doug Arthur and Bob Gempel) -- not to mention the
brother of the supreme leader, Randy McKean -- I would submit that you
actually COULD say that what happened at Madison Square Garden is
accepted practice in the ICC.
>> Secondly, the whole atmosphere lacked any reverence for God. It seems the
>> ICC has forgotten we have a holy God who deserves honor and respect. I
>> say this because a large number of members got up during the service and
>> returned from the concession stands with pizza, pretzels, soda, potato
>> chips, etc., which they passed out among themselves and consumed during
>> the "worship" service. I thought I was at the circus.
>>
>again, since i was not there, but i know from experience that if the same
>thing were to happen during the service, they would be corrected on their
>lack of reverence to God....i know i have been corrected for talking
>during service as a young christian
>food during the service is something i have never seen before, even during
>all day workshops..that's why there are fellowhip breaks! <grin>
As I would expect. However, with so many people engaging in it at Madison
Square Garden, I suspect a general lack of reverence for God, or perhaps
an general impression that the service is more of a show. Just my
impressions.
Mark Davis
rt...@crl.com (Raymond Tam) wrote:
>If part of my money goes toward finding these children or any other
>children a family and home, I'm all for it.
>raymond
This whole thread makes me sick to my stomach. I can visualize all
these girls giving up thier babies to what they think are good people.
On the flip side - ignorance is bliss. If I didn't know my son was
taken by a cult I'd sleep alot better at night.
The other thing that makes me sick is to think about all the fathers
who will have NO say in the matter. The ICC does not recognize that
the fathers have any say as to whether or not the child is placed for
adoption - other than what the law dictates. If the law has a
loophole - (as in my case) - the ICC will exploit that loophole to
separate the father from his child. If nothing else - they will just
tell the mother to move around the country from congregation to
congregation until the father finally gives up. That's what happened
in my case.
After all I went through it makes me absolutely ill to think about the
church allocating funds and starting a program to go do it some more.
Granted - the vast majority of the people involved will probably not
know any better and therefore not be as upset. If these girls knew
how evil this organization really is - they'd RUN the other way.
Mark Davis
EOshiro
Joanne's punchline reads:
>Phil Presbyterian, Luke Lutheran, and Ron Roman Catholic: "So what you're
>*really* saying is: It's the top of the head that REALLY matters! Hey,
>that's the part we do!!!"
Also known as "soggin' the noggin."
EOshiro
Dave writes:
>Chris Garland & I went to down to Madison Square
>Garden yesterday to watch the most-attended worship
>service in the history of the Movment<...>
I'm assuming you didn't tell anyone to avoid adding to the "numbers?"
RE: event I
Can't say I've noticed "Passing the Friendship Baton." But then again,
I've never seen an event that large, either. The largest one we had here
was our 7th anniversary service, with 2000+ attending. But I was in kids
class.
RE: event II
See my other post.
RE: event III
>The emphasis seemed to be on the *show*, not the worship.
I've noticed that when leaders share for the Lord's Supper, it tends to be
more on the "sermony" side; but when newer Christians share, they give
more of a personal testimony. But that's just in general, not always.
I've also never personally cared much for singing (congregational or
performance) during communion. Sometimes we do it, sometimes we don't.
I've never figured out why.
RE: event V
>To our disappointment, Steve Johnson came on to speak in
>place of KipMcKean, who had been scheduled.
This was obviously not the same type of disappointment that the members
felt, I'm sure.
>Early in his sermon, Steve observed that some people call the
>International Churches of Christ a cult. He said that what really
>separated the ICC from everyone else, is that they teach that you must
>become a disciple, and then get baptized. Of course, this is nothing new
>-- it's the defining doctrine of the Movement. But it's not every day
>that a World Sector leader says it publicly.
No offense, but not that you would know if he said it daily or not.
>These are just my impressions of the service. All in all, it was an
>amazingly well-orchestrated event. But it left me feeling spiritually
>*cold*. . .
Well, I doubt you went to get a "warm fuzzy" feeling, either.
Gintas Jazbutis
In article <4uac4b$i...@madrid.visi.net>, sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) wrote:
>karen liu <e0fk...@credit.erin.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>>hmm..i don't know about that but in toronto it is always about how we need
>>to remember jesus and how his death on the cross changed whoever's life
>>that is speaking,
>
>a lot of what is talked about here on the NG in the big churches. I
>don't know about size in Toronto, but I think that if the ICC could
>keep the congregation size small, *some* of the abuses/problems might
>not be there.....
Indeed. As a church gets bigger, you need more
thorough mechanisms to keep a handle on
everything.
Which begs the question, what is the point of having a big
church?
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
Chris Garland
Well, I would know, as I was part of Johnson's ministry for years. I was
with Dave at the service.
karen liu
On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Scott W. Schreiber wrote:
> karen liu <e0fk...@credit.erin.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> >hmm..i don't know about that but in toronto it is always about how we need
> >to remember jesus and how his death on the cross changed whoever's life
> >that is speaking,
>
> This brings up an interesting thought. Here in Norfolk, I don't hear
> a lot of what is talked about here on the NG in the big churches. I
> don't know about size in Toronto, but I think that if the ICC could
> keep the congregation size small, *some* of the abuses/problems might
> not be there.....
your thought is appreciated...okay....first of all, since i am new
here...what does NG stand for?? (sorry, when i took geography i had to
take it in french!! french immersion program!!) or do you mean NG as in
newsgroup? i am a little confused so please enlighten me!!
the church in toronto is roughly 1500 in membership and has 4 regions, and
each regions has several sectors, depending on which region it is...
does this qualify as a smaller church? <grin> hehe
eskimo karen
karen liu
On 7 Aug 1996, Chris Garland wrote:
> >
>
> Karen, judging by the fact that 3 world sector leaders were in attendance
> (Steve Johnson, Doug Arthur and Bob Gempel) -- not to mention the
> brother of the supreme leader, Randy McKean -- I would submit that you
> actually COULD say that what happened at Madison Square Garden is
> accepted practice in the ICC.
but we don't follow steve johnson, doug arthur and bob gempel (the only
time i have ever heard of any of them was bob gempel and that was because
he did something for hope)
we just followthe bible..since it's between us and God, not us, the
"church leaders" and God...
these three don't lead the church in toronto...they are jsut people...and
i am not saying that they were bad, there may have been an explanation for
this...but as i said before, i wasn't involved in that particular meeting
i was just saying that the point about reverence, or lack of is not a
characteristic of the icc, and i used the services that i attend as proof
that it isn't
sorry, i jsut got home from class and my mind is swirling again with
reactions, so i may not make much coherent sense right now..i apologise
for any confusion i may cause
> >>
> >again, since i was not there, but i know from experience that if the same
> >thing were to happen during the service, they would be corrected on their
> >lack of reverence to God....i know i have been corrected for talking
> >during service as a young christian
> >food during the service is something i have never seen before, even during
> >all day workshops..that's why there are fellowhip breaks! <grin>
>
> As I would expect. However, with so many people engaging in it at Madison
> Square Garden, I suspect a general lack of reverence for God, or perhaps
> an general impression that the service is more of a show. Just my
> impressions.
>
it may be possible that those that were getting up for food may not have
been members...but like i said, i was not there so i am not a credible
witness to this
i jsut tell you what i have seen in the church in toronto, which is part
of the icc
karen
Raymond Tam
Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: rt...@crl.com (Raymond Tam) wrote:
: >If part of my money goes toward finding these children or any other
: >children a family and home, I'm all for it.
: >raymond
: This whole thread makes me sick to my stomach. I can visualize all
: these girls giving up thier babies to what they think are good people.
<snip>
So you would rather have these children stay in orphanages? In Shanghai,
HOPE runs an orphanage. Almost all those children are little girls who
have been given up by their parent(s) because of the draconian one-child
policy in China. Because of Chinese societal pressures, I don't think
any Chinese (i.e. mainland China) family will adopt them. Chinese
orphanages are literally filled with little girls, and their numbers are
not decreasing. According to some reports, a large percentage of them
die in the orphanages. If they live, they'll have no family, which is a
social stigma of unimaginagble proporitions in China. Would you rather
have these things happen to those little girls instead of finding a home
and family?
Scott W. Schreiber
karen liu <e0fk...@credit.erin.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>these three don't lead the church in toronto...they are jsut people.
"News Flash! WE are ONE CHURCH!! AMEN?!?"
---Kip McKean
Leaders gathering
Manila 1994
>i jsut tell you what i have seen in the church in toronto, which is part
>of the icc
Exactly. "part of the icc." Kip is YOUR leader Karen, whether you
think so or not. He says so himself in the quote above. Tape #9104.
RICK & SARAH BAUER
karen liu <e0fk...@credit.erin.utoronto.ca> wrote:
<snip>
> time i have ever heard of any of them was bob gempel and that was because
> he did something for hope)
> we just followthe bible..since it's between us and God, not us, the
> "church leaders" and God...
You're right Karen, that's how it should be (following the Bible and
not a man or men), but it is not that way in the ICC. In the ICC a
disciple is expected to follow and imitate their discipler, the
person over them in the Lord. This person is to be imitated in every
area, and a disciple is to seek advice from their discipler in
every area, and they expected to follow that advice.
Steve, Doug and Bob are very respected leaders in the ICC. They
are being imitated by lead evangelists all over the world. The leader
in Toronto is expected to imitate Mark Mancini, and Mark is imitating
his discipler, Marty Fuqua. Marty is imitating the ultimate disciple,
Kip McKean.
You see so members of the ICC are following men, and these 3 men
mentioned above in particular.
> these three don't lead the church in toronto...they are jsut people...and
Karen, The gentelmen are more than "just people." They are World
Sector Leaders. That is a very important position in the structure
of the church.
They believe they are prophets of God.
Sarah
Mark Davis
rt...@crl.com (Raymond Tam) wrote:
><snip>
>So you would rather have these children stay in orphanages? In Shanghai,
>HOPE runs an orphanage. Almost all those children are little girls who
>have been given up by their parent(s) because of the draconian one-child
>policy in China. Because of Chinese societal pressures, I don't think
>any Chinese (i.e. mainland China) family will adopt them. Chinese
>orphanages are literally filled with little girls, and their numbers are
>not decreasing. According to some reports, a large percentage of them
>die in the orphanages. If they live, they'll have no family, which is a
>social stigma of unimaginagble proporitions in China. Would you rather
>have these things happen to those little girls instead of finding a home
>and family?
>raymond
I have no problem with those types of adptions - although I would
rather see these children going into normal homes as opposed to going
into a cult and being brainwashed from birth.
Just don't take anymore children away from parents who want to
keep them OK?
Mark Davis
EOshiro
Mark writes:
>This whole thread makes me sick to my stomach. I can visualize all
>these girls giving up thier babies to what they think are good people.
So what about the thousands of orphaned girls in China and India? The
ones who somehow escaped death? Would you rather they be dead?
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>So what about the thousands of orphaned girls in China and India? The
>ones who somehow escaped death? Would you rather they be dead?
Can we hear about the wonderful work in China one more time please?
Carol2180
In article <4uhgen$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>So what about the thousands of orphaned girls in China and India? The
>ones who somehow escaped death? Would you rather they be dead?
Mark isn't saying that at all. Talk about black OR white
thinking.....either he supports the whole movement adoption bit OR he
rathers that the orphaned girls in China and India be dead. No, no, no,
no, no.
\
ChrisGarland
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Mark writes:
>
>>This whole thread makes me sick to my stomach. I can visualize all
>>these girls giving up thier babies to what they think are good people.
>
>ones who somehow escaped death? Would you rather they be dead?
Are you claiming the ICC has adopted "thousands" of orphaned children
now? Is this another ICC statistic inflation example? You must be one of
Roger's famous ex-leader ex-members.
Clinton Williams
Sarah said,
>Karen, The gentelmen are more than "just people." They are World
>Sector Leaders. That is a very important position in the structure
>of the church.
>
>They believe they are prophets of God.
Now who do you say that you are. Wouldn't you say that you pass on the words
of God. Now that's pretty important stuff! Only a prophet can do that,
surely.
It is strange how ex-ICCers get so excited about sector leaders etc whereas
the average ICCer (terms used to avoid pointless argument) concentrates more
on where they are personally and where they can help. What makes you idolize
them? Surely they ARE just men, taking on no more than what God gives them.
While in the US I will be using my journalism skills to some effect and sure,
the "big guys" hold some interest but I want to write about the average joker
and his "race". (More kiwi-speak joker = bloke = fella = guy) Mmmm! I was
sure that baptism was in there somewhere! :-)
Hasta la Vista,
El Estudiante
ChrisGarland
rt...@crl.com (Raymond Tam) wrote:
>Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: rt...@crl.com (Raymond Tam) wrote:
>
>: >If part of my money goes toward finding these children or any other
>: >children a family and home, I'm all for it.
>: >raymond
>
>: these girls giving up thier babies to what they think are good people.
>
>So you would rather have these children stay in orphanages? In Shanghai,
>HOPE runs an orphanage. Almost all those children are little girls who
>have been given up by their parent(s) because of the draconian one-child
>policy in China. Because of Chinese societal pressures, I don't think
>any Chinese (i.e. mainland China) family will adopt them. Chinese
>orphanages are literally filled with little girls, and their numbers are
>not decreasing. According to some reports, a large percentage of them
>die in the orphanages. If they live, they'll have no family, which is a
>social stigma of unimaginagble proporitions in China. Would you rather
>have these things happen to those little girls instead of finding a home
>and family?
>
Raymond, I would rather these little girls found homes that were not
affiliated with religious cults. The ICC isn't doing anything exclusive
in China, don't make them out to be some kind of heroes or something. I
had friend who recently adopted a Chinese girl through the Catholic
Church.
Scott W. Schreiber
clin...@iconz.co.nz (Clinton Williams) wrote:
>Now who do you say that you are. Wouldn't you say that you pass on the words
>of God. Now that's pretty important stuff! Only a prophet can do that,
>surely.
I disagree.
None of the NT books open with "Paul, apostle of Christ, and Prophet
of the most high God..."
>While in the US I will be using my journalism skills to some effect
^^^^^^^^^^^^
????? OH????
The rest of that post didn't make much sense to me.......
Smlleecat6
Mark writes:
.>This whole thread makes me sick to my stomach. I can visualize all
.>these girls giving up thier babies to what they think are good people.
.So what about the thousands of orphaned girls in China and India? The
.ones who somehow escaped death? Would you rather they be dead?
Do you think your church is the only one helping people? Next thing you
know they'll come up with some psychotic equation to prove that they are
the *only* ones helping people.
Scott W. Schreiber
smlle...@aol.com (Smlleecat6) wrote:
>Do you think your church is the only one helping people?
They think theirs is teh only church period, so the answer is yes...
DAnder9518
In article <4ubos9$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>I'm assuming you didn't tell anyone to avoid adding to the "numbers?"
Huh?
>Can't say I've noticed "Passing the Friendship Baton." But then again,
>I've never seen an event that large, either.
I remember other, smaller services/weddings where one speaker introduces
another as "their best friend".
I'm not saying it isn't *true* that Doug Arthur is Steve Johnson's best
friend -- he probably is! It just strikes me as an idosynchratic way of
introducing someone, which in essence says *nothing* about the credibility
of the speaker (kind of like "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV").
>>To our disappointment, Steve Johnson came on to speak in
>>place of KipMcKean, who had been scheduled.
>
>This was obviously not the same type of disappointment that the members
>felt, I'm sure.
I'm sure some members were *also* disappointed that Kip wasn't there!
(e.g. members from other cities who may have made their travel plans when
Kip was scheduled to speak)
>>Early in his sermon, Steve observed that some people call the
>>International Churches of Christ a cult. He said that what really
>>separated the ICC from everyone else, is that they teach that you must
>>become a disciple, and then get baptized. Of course, this is nothing new
>>-- it's the defining doctrine of the Movement. But it's not every day
>>that a World Sector leader says it publicly.
>
>No offense, but not that you would know if he said it daily or not.
No offense taken. My point was that, since the doctrine of "disciples
baptism" has holes in it so large you could drive a *Zamboni* though it,
it's notable when one of the upper-echelon leader affirms this core
doctrine in a public forum.
I'm sure you're well aware that certain ICC "inner doctrines" are taught
*privately* but not emphasized *publicly* (e.g. the doctrine that the ICC
is the "true church").
>>These are just my impressions of the service. All in all, it was an
>>amazingly well-orchestrated event. But it left me feeling spiritually
>>*cold*. . .
>
>Well, I doubt you went to get a "warm fuzzy" feeling, either.
The reason I went was to a.) check out the service, and b.) have a good
worship experience. Unfortunately, I found it hard to do both.
----->Dave
Ovum
>>This whole thread makes me sick to my stomach. I can visualize all
>>these girls giving up thier babies to what they think are good people.
>
>So what about the thousands of orphaned girls in China and India? The
>ones who somehow escaped death? Would you rather they be dead?
I applaud this effort of the ICC; after all, James 1:22 does say part of
pure and faultless religion is taking care of orphans and widows. I think
Christians SHOULD take the lead in adopting orphans! What an opportunity!
I myself have been adopted twice...once by man, and once by God...
Mark Davis
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Mark writes:
>>This whole thread makes me sick to my stomach. I can visualize all
>>these girls giving up thier babies to what they think are good people.
>So what about the thousands of orphaned girls in China and India? The
>ones who somehow escaped death? Would you rather they be dead?
No, growing up in the ICC and being brainwashed from birth is
certainly better than death.
Mark Davis
Smlleecat6
Mark wrote:
.>eoshiro wrote:
.>So what about the thousands of orphaned girls in China and India? The
.>ones who somehow escaped death? Would you rather they be dead?
.No, growing up in the ICC and being brainwashed from birth is
.certainly better than death.
Once I was babysitting a leader's kid. He was about 3 years old. He had
these two action figures and he was making one beat up on the other one
and he was saying "this is satan. I am going to crush satan." This kind
of freaked me out at the time. What do you think? Is this normal or
what?
EOshiro
Carol writes:
>In article <4uhgen$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
>writes:
>
>>So what about the thousands of orphaned girls in China and India? The
>>ones who somehow escaped death? Would you rather they be dead?
>
>Mark isn't saying that at all. Talk about black OR white
>thinking.....either he supports the whole movement adoption bit OR he
>rathers that the orphaned girls in China and India be dead. No, no, no,
>no, no.
It may be fewer than ten orphans adopted a year, but it makes a difference
to each one of those children who now have a new hope in life. A new
opportunity. Mark's beliefs apparently include those that the ICC is an
entirely evil organization and are trying to gather as many children as
possible to raise in their evil veiws. But that's just how he comes
across to me. In my remark, I was trying to determine if Mark believes
that being adopted by the ICC is a fate worse than death. (Which he has
stated he doesn't.) If these babies died, they'd go to heaven, whereas
(in Mark's eyes), they're almost inevetably hell-bound. One of those
"necessary evil" issues...
Chris G. writes:
>Are you claiming the ICC has adopted "thousands" of orphaned children
>now? Is this another ICC statistic inflation example? You must be one of
>Roger's famous ex-leader ex-members.
I wasn't writing in a clear train of thought. I meant that there are
thousands of orphaned girls, but there are even more who are killed (which
is probably impossible to prove, since no records would be kept.) The ICC
has goals of taking care of as many as possible, if nothing else. (Did we
ever reach a concensus on that lying/exaggeration debate?)
smllee cat writes:
>Do you think your church is the only one helping people? Next thing you
>know they'll come up with some psychotic equation to prove that they are
>the *only* ones helping people.
Oh, please. That's a little silly. Of course I don't think that. Nobody
in the ICC does. There are thousands of benevolent projects out there.
But doesn't it make a difference if only ONE more life is saved? I think
Mark should be a little less worried about where the babies are going and
show a little more concern that they're even alive. I doubt he's given up
all hope for his son.
Dave writes:
>>I'm assuming you didn't tell anyone to avoid adding to the "numbers?"
>
>Huh?
I just thought you wouldn't want to have anything to do with the
attendance statistics, so I thought maybe you didn't let anyone know you
were there if you could help it.
>I'm not saying it isn't *true* that Doug Arthur is Steve Johnson's best
>friend -- he probably is! It just strikes me as an idosynchratic way of
>introducing someone, which in essence says *nothing* about the
credibility
>of the speaker (kind of like "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV").
Do most church introductions include a credibility establishment? Like
how long one has been a Christian, their leadership position, any religion
degrees, etc.? I'm guessing it was said to create a "friendly
atmosphere," if nothing else.
EOshiro
Mark writes:
>I have no problem with those types of adptions - although I would
>rather see these children going into normal homes as opposed to going
>into a cult and being brainwashed from birth.
Although the opinions of who fits into the designation "cult" varies, I
think we all feel that way, Mark.
>Just don't take anymore children away from parents who want to
>keep them OK?
I'm assuming that based on your personal experience.
From an article in _Upside Down_ about an adopted child in Atlanta.
(Some of the article highlighted the agency.)
Prospective parents fill out a detailed application and pay a nominal
application fee. Then they go through a detailed homestudy conducted by a
licensed agency in their homestate. Meanwhile, a birth mother--typically
a woman in her mid-twenties who already has children and doesn't feel she
can afford another--contacts HOPE. For the remaining months of the
pregnancy, she stays with a host family in the Atlanta area. Her prenatal
care and housing costs are paid by HOPE. She looks at photo albums put
together by families--no last names are used--who want to adopt and
selects one.
After the baby's birth, the baby stays with a foster family for at
least 10 days, in case the birth mother changes her mind. At that point
she and the birth father--if he is known--are asked to sign a paper
relinquishing parental rights. Only when these papers are signed is the
child given to the adoptive parents. Four to six months later the
adoption is finalized in the judge's chambers. HOPE does not encourage
open adoptions, but allows the family to send a photo and letter about the
child's progress once a year.
smlleecat writes:
>Once I was babysitting a leader's kid. He was about 3 years old. He had
>these two action figures and he was making one beat up on the other one
>and he was saying "this is satan. I am going to crush satan." This kind
>of freaked me out at the time. What do you think? Is this normal or
>what?
Perfectly normal. Not the characters, of course, but kids are like that.
Have been for a long time. Waaaaaay before the Power Rangers.
Raymond Tam
: >So you would rather have these children stay in orphanages? In Shanghai,
: >HOPE runs an orphanage. Almost all those children are little girls who
: >have been given up by their parent(s) because of the draconian one-child
: >policy in China. Because of Chinese societal pressures, I don't think
: >any Chinese (i.e. mainland China) family will adopt them. Chinese
: >orphanages are literally filled with little girls, and their numbers are
: >not decreasing. According to some reports, a large percentage of them
: >die in the orphanages. If they live, they'll have no family, which is a
: >social stigma of unimaginagble proporitions in China. Would you rather
: >have these things happen to those little girls instead of finding a home
: >and family?
: >
: Raymond, I would rather these little girls found homes that were not
: affiliated with religious cults. The ICC isn't doing anything exclusive
: in China, don't make them out to be some kind of heroes or something. I
: had friend who recently adopted a Chinese girl through the Catholic
: Church.
Chris,
Perhaps you misunderstood me, but I never said the ICOC was doing
anything exclusive. I *do* think they are heroes. In fact, I think all
the foreign adoption agencies *are* heroes regardless of religious and/or
political affiliations. These agencies are fighting an uphill battle,
and I applaud their efforts, including the efforts of the Catholic
Church's adoption agency. The situation in China is very grim, and
anyone who does something about it should be regarded as a hero.
DAnder9518
In article <4un9l8$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>>>I'm assuming you didn't tell anyone to avoid adding to the "numbers?"
>>
>>Huh?
>
>I just thought you wouldn't want to have anything to do with the
>attendance statistics, so I thought maybe you didn't let anyone know you
>were there if you could help it.
Well, I'm sure Chris & I were part of the head count. But I wasn't so
much concerned with attendance figures, as with the *content* of the
service!
You actually seem quite defensive about my attending an ICC service! I
don't understand why -- Roger is always telling us to check out an ICC
service for ourselves. Well, I *did*, and I didn't like it. . .
>>I'm not saying it isn't *true* that Doug Arthur is Steve Johnson's best
>>friend -- he probably is! It just strikes me as an idosynchratic way
of
>>introducing someone, which in essence says *nothing* about the
>credibility
>>of the speaker (kind of like "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV").
>
>Do most church introductions include a credibility establishment? Like
>how long one has been a Christian, their leadership position, any
religion
>degrees, etc.? I'm guessing it was said to create a "friendly
>atmosphere," if nothing else.
Well, I wasn't going to make any accusative statements about the
"Friendship Baton", but since you're pressing me about this, here goes:
It is my opinion that ICC leaders are introduced as "great men of God",
"best friends", etc. to bolster their credibility before they speak, and
keep members from developing "bad attitudes" about the speaker or his
message.
This "credibility establishment", as you called it, goes way beyond what
I've seen in other churches. Perhaps you haven't heard the tape where Kip
was introduced as God's greatest treasure on earth today. ..
---->Dave
Jani A Heinonen
>Mark writes:
>>This whole thread makes me sick to my stomach. I can visualize all
>>these girls giving up thier babies to what they think are good people.
>So what about the thousands of orphaned girls in China and India? The
>ones who somehow escaped death? Would you rather they be dead?
Hmm. When I was in the ICC, most of the time I would have rather been
dead. So if these kids will be brought up as "Christians", I really dunno.
--
Jani Heinonen | A wanna-be (al)chemist at the University of Helsinki
jzhe...@rock.helsinki.fi | Finger for public PGP key
Mark Davis
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>It may be fewer than ten orphans adopted a year, but it makes a difference
>to each one of those children who now have a new hope in life. A new
>opportunity. Mark's beliefs apparently include those that the ICC is an
>entirely evil organization and are trying to gather as many children as
>possible to raise in their evil veiws. But that's just how he comes
>across to me. In my remark, I was trying to determine if Mark believes
>that being adopted by the ICC is a fate worse than death. (Which he has
>stated he doesn't.) If these babies died, they'd go to heaven, whereas
>(in Mark's eyes), they're almost inevetably hell-bound. One of those
>"necessary evil" issues...
Don't put words in my mouth EO. I have never ONCE said that ICCers
are going to hell. What I have said is that the ICC as an istitution
is patently evil and is a cult. I have never ONCE said that
individual members (who are deceived in my opinion) are going to hell.
If I believed that being adopted by the ICC was worse than death I
would never have stood between my girlfriend (a rebelling member) and
an abortion clinic. I would have driven her there and paid for it -
things would have been alot easier.
It does torment me to know that my son is being raised in a cult - but
I am definately glad he is alive. At least I assume he is. You see I
don't know - because the members who adopted him and swore an oath to
me that they would write once a year have conveniently forgotten that
promise and could care less if I worry about him. You see - I'm not a
member - I do not count.
Mark Davis
Mark Davis
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>From an article in _Upside Down_ about an adopted child in Atlanta.
>(Some of the article highlighted the agency.)
> Prospective parents fill out a detailed application and pay a nominal
>application fee. Then they go through a detailed homestudy conducted by a
>licensed agency in their homestate. Meanwhile, a birth mother--typically
>a woman in her mid-twenties who already has children and doesn't feel she
>can afford another--contacts HOPE. For the remaining months of the
>pregnancy, she stays with a host family in the Atlanta area. Her prenatal
>care and housing costs are paid by HOPE. She looks at photo albums put
>together by families--no last names are used--who want to adopt and
>selects one.
> After the baby's birth, the baby stays with a foster family for at
>least 10 days, in case the birth mother changes her mind. At that point
>she and the birth father--if he is known--are asked to sign a paper
>relinquishing parental rights. Only when these papers are signed is the
>child given to the adoptive parents. Four to six months later the
>adoption is finalized in the judge's chambers. HOPE does not encourage
>open adoptions, but allows the family to send a photo and letter about the
>child's progress once a year.
EO - I am from Atlanta. Been there, done that. Most of what you said
here is eigther mandated by Georgia law - or is the custom in any
agency.
The main thing is - this is NOT how I was treated. As soon as my
opposition to the adoption was made clear - all the courtesy
STOPPED COLD. If the ICC doesn't get it's way - it gets pretty mean
about it.
BTW - as I've already said - I'm still waiting for the letter and the
picture. Been oh, about seven years now...
I'm not holding my breath.
Mark Davis
EOshiro
Mark writes:
>Don't put words in my mouth EO. I have never ONCE said that ICCers
>are going to hell. What I have said is that the ICC as an istitution
>is patently evil and is a cult. I have never ONCE said that
>individual members (who are deceived in my opinion) are going to hell.
Sorry, Mark. I guess I was just making an assumption. Of course, you
kind of still avoided saying what you really believe.
ChrisGarland
dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>In article <4un9l8$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
>writes:
>
>>>>I'm assuming you didn't tell anyone to avoid adding to the "numbers?"
>>>
>>>Huh?
>>
>>I just thought you wouldn't want to have anything to do with the
>>attendance statistics, so I thought maybe you didn't let anyone know you
>>were there if you could help it.
>
>Well, I'm sure Chris & I were part of the head count. But I wasn't so
>much concerned with attendance figures, as with the *content* of the
>service!
Actually, there were no counters. I don't know how they came up with that
16,000 number.
EOshiro
Chris G. writes:
>Actually, there were no counters. I don't know how they came up with that
>16,000 number.
I'm assuming you mean gate counters. It's probably the same way they
count for all other services--members keep track and tell their leaders.
In any case, I hope it's not the same way people figured numbers for the
Million Man March. Some people counted 100,000. Some counted 1,000,000.
Somehow, the number 14,000,000 came up. Go figure.
Mark Davis
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Mark writes:
You've lost me here EO - I thought the paragraph you quoted was pretty
unambiguous. What do you mean?
Mark
EOshiro
Mark asks:
You said what you didn't say, not what you believe. Or maybe you did, but
it just didn't sound like it for sure.
Mark Davis
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Mark asks:
Oh I see - yes I do believe that ICC members will go to heaven. God
will forgive your doctinal error (if any) as he will forgive Mother
Theresa's (if any).
Mark Davis
ChrisGarland
I mean there were no people going around and counting, like they usually
do at ICC services. There *were* some turnstiles, but not every entrance
had them. My guess is that they knew what the capacity of Madison Square
Garden is and eye-balled it from there. I don't know.
DAnder9518
In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.960806...@tuzo.erin>, karen liu
<e0fk...@credit.erin.utoronto.ca> writes:
>On 6 Aug 1996, Chris Garland wrote:
>
>> I'd like to post some of my impressions of the service:
>>
>> First, I was greatly taken aback by the lack of mention of Christ
during
>> communion. I found this disturbing, because Jesus tells us to "do this
in
>> memory of ME." Instead, the communion service was a back-slapping
>> arent-we-a-wonderful-church kind of message. Quite disturbing,
>> considering the suffering of Christ.
>
>hmm..i don't know about that but in toronto it is always about how we
need
>to remember jesus and how his death on the cross changed whoever's life
>that is speaking, or how it affected that person who is doing the
>communion, so i can't agree with you on that one
>again,
Well, Chris wasn't really seeking anyone's agreement -- he was just
sharing his observations of one service. I had similar observations about
this one service, but we weren't drawing conclusions about ICC services in
general.
---->Dave
DAnder9518
In article <3207DB...@access.digex.net>, Jan Sloan
<sl...@access.digex.net> writes: {snipped}
>> (Note: If anyone can clarify more about this adoption ministry, please
do
>> so. It would seem inappropriate if ICC member contributions are being
>> used to defray adoption costs for ICC leaders, and/or other ICC married
>> couples.)
>I see adoption as a positive thing and can't see why, Dave, you would
think
>that there
>was something wrong with the church footing some of the bill. Some
employers
>encourage
>adoption by footing some of the bill. Is that inappropriate also??
>
>Jan Sloan
I don't think there's anything wrong with companies supporting adoption --
companies would be using the money their employees *earned* for them, not
money their employees *gave* them! There's a difference...
I didn't say I had anything against adoption. But if, as Doug Arthur
said, the Boston church contributed $200,000 to an adoption charity, it
would only seem approriate if all the members of the Boston church agreed
with their money being used this way.
You and Raymond have both said you would approve of your contribution
money going towards adoption costs. That's great! But as you know ICC
members are a diverse group of people in differing financial
circumstances. My concern is for individuals who don't have much money,
or who have been *pressured* to give what little they have. Do all
members of the Boston church agree with their money being used this way?
Were they *asked*?
FWIW, I got an e-mail from someone who was quite *distressed* that their
church spent contribution money on an adoption. Furthermore, their
minister misled them about where the money was coming from (special
contribution).
----->Dave
Starr
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Mark writes:
>>Don't put words in my mouth EO. I have never ONCE said that ICCers
>>are going to hell. What I have said is that the ICC as an istitution
>>is patently evil and is a cult. I have never ONCE said that
>>individual members (who are deceived in my opinion) are going to hell.
>Sorry, Mark. I guess I was just making an assumption. Of course, you
>kind of still avoided saying what you really believe.
EO - I don't know (or don't remember) what Mark has said about what he
"really believes" (if your're referring to religious affiliations).
But, I think that he really believes the ICC hurt him really badly,
took away his son, won't let him know where he is or see him, and has
broken any kind of promise they made to him regarding his son,
kim
Gareth
>>Once I was babysitting a leader's kid. He was about 3 years old. He had
>>these two action figures and he was making one beat up on the other one
>>and he was saying "this is satan. I am going to crush satan." This kind
>>of freaked me out at the time. What do you think? Is this normal or
>>what?
>Perfectly normal. Not the characters, of course, but kids are like that.
>Have been for a long time. Waaaaaay before the Power Rangers.
A 3 year old in incapable of understanding complex issues such as
religion. Like all children they pick things up and although this
particular child was playing "attacking satan" it's clear that he/she
was only acting on what it has learned from it's "normal" environment.
What I am saying is the child will grow up to follow the ICC as it is
a normal thing to do and without question. You don't ever have to
worry about a dog turning on you if you train it well.
I do not like the idea of children being forced fed with religious
ideas. Children don't really have a valid oppinion in the eyes of
most adults.
Gareth
Gintas Jazbutis
>I do not like the idea of children being forced fed with religious
>ideas. Children don't really have a valid oppinion in the eyes of
>most adults.
>
>Gareth
>
Do you have any children of your own? If you did,
you'd realize that, in general, you don't let them
make decisions for the family. There's a reason
for that. And about "force feeding" religion;
so, you're not going to pass down to your
children anything that's important to you?
You'll just let them grow up any which way?
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
Ed Tice
(snip)
> >I do not like the idea of children being forced fed with religious
> >ideas. Children don't really have a valid oppinion in the eyes of
> >most adults.
> And about "force feeding" religion;
> so, you're not going to pass down to your
> children anything that's important to you?
> You'll just let them grow up any which way?
Unfortunately, this is that attitude of most people who call themselves
Christians. Many don't want their kids to grow up 'any which way'. They
want to make sure that their kids get good jobs and good educations and ...
Rarely do you hear parents say, "I want to make sure my kids grow up to be
Christians." The extent to which people want to see their kids become
Christians is a direct reflection of how important their Christianity (if
they really are Christians) is to them.
Let's not forget that this world is Satan's domain. Our place is in
heaven. When we don't make teaching our kids about Jesus a #1 priority,
what we are doing is pointing them down the wide road that leads to
destruction.
EOshiro
Gareth wrote:
>What I am saying is the child will grow up to follow the ICC as it is
>a normal thing to do and without question. You don't ever have to
>worry about a dog turning on you if you train it well.
So, you think of children as dogs?
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
The above question is too long. It should read: Do you think?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste or per DQ - It is a terrible thing
to lose one's mind.
In Christ
Rob Vugrnick
(Just a Christian - who has not fully repented of sarcasm)
Michael
EOshiro wrote:
>
> Gareth wrote:
>
> >What I am saying is the child will grow up to follow the ICC as it is
> >a normal thing to do and without question. You don't ever have to
> >worry about a dog turning on you if you train it well.
>
> So, you think of children as dogs?
I think what he's saying is that the most abnormal behavior, treated as
normal for a sufficient period of time, will become normal behavior. As
in, the longer someone is exposed to any particular stimulus, the less
they notice it. Shove someone down enough, tell him his opinion doesn't
matter long enough, they'll believe it, and not even notice that the
rest of the world knows better. Think about it....
Mike
Gareth
>Do you have any children of your own? If you did,
>you'd realize that, in general, you don't let them
>make decisions for the family.
This point is valid
>And about "force feeding" religion;
>so, you're not going to pass down to your
>children anything that's important to you?
Children are equaul to free will as much as we are. God would rather his
children choose a path for themselves than to be "brain washed" into it.
>You'll just let them grow up any which way?
We should disapline our children but also allow these seedlins to grow so
that one day they will grow into beautiful flowers.
>
>Gintas
>
>
>
> Gintas Jazbutis
> gin...@concentric.net
Gareth.
Gareth (UK)
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>Gareth wrote:
>>What I am saying is the child will grow up to follow the ICC as it is
>>a normal thing to do and without question. You don't ever have to
>>worry about a dog turning on you if you train it well.
>So, you think of children as dogs?
Twisting my word does not change the truth,
I speak from the heart not from cloudy judgement.
Gareth
Gintas Jazbutis
>Children are equaul to free will as much as we are. God would rather his
>children choose a path for themselves than to be "brain washed" into it.
>We should disapline our children but also allow these seedlins to grow so
>that one day they will grow into beautiful flowers.
>
>Gareth.
>
This is naive so as to boggle the mind.
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net