I recently had the opportunity to review Al Baird's article entitled "You've Got Mail," which appeared on the ICoC website. While I found most of the article to be fairly inert, Baird's conclusions stated in one paragraph of the article (quoted below for easy reference) are disturbing, to say the least.

Baird claims the following:

"...Even 'spiritual pornography' has found its way onto the information superhighway. Instead of building lives for God, enemies of the church and disgruntled former members are uniting to attack the Kingdom and destroy people's faith. They present their 'facts' and their 'stories' in such a way as to picture the church as an abusive, authoritative, greedy and evil cult. Of course, the danger in reading such material is that only one side is presented in personal stories of hurt, and no way exists to ever learn the other side. And we all know what the wise Solomon said, "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him" (Proverbs 18:17). I wonder what would have been said about Jesus on the Internet if it had existed in his lifetime."

Al Baird, the ICoC's official spokesperson, holds a Ph.D. in Physics. I also assume that he knows how to select his words very carefully. I suppose this is one of the reasons why Kip McKean appointed him to the position. With this in mind, it is my opinion that Baird's words above are disingenuous at best - deliberately misleading or more, at worst.

First, I must take issue with Baird's statement that there is no way to learn the other side when ex-ICoC members post on the Internet their accounts of time spent in the ICoC. In many of the ex-ICoC members' accounts that are available on the Internet, names are named. I, as well as other ex-ICoC members who are on the Internet, actively encourage people to name names - at least the names of leaders (usually not rank-and-file disciples unless they have a compelling reason to do so) for the sake of verification and accountability. Anyone who is willing to do the legwork can find out the other side of the story. Any ICoC member who reads any of these ex-member accounts would certainly be able to identify, locate, and get the other side of the story from the parties in question. Would ICoC members whose names are named in these accounts willingly speak about the situation(s) in question, if asked to do so?

As for those not familiar with the ICoC, I grant that it might be more difficult, though not impossible, to hear both sides of the story. This would involve perhaps sending an email to the writer in question and simply asking for information such as an email address, a phone number, or even the location of the last ICoC church the parties on the other side of the question were attending. The ICoC is a small world, and it's really not that difficult to track down people who are still ICoC members.

Conversely, I wonder: when is the last time Baird, or any other ICoC member, encouraged an 'enemy of the church' or a 'disgruntled former member' to sit in on, and comment during, a "First Principles" study or a "Counting the Cost" session with a potential recruit? When phrased in those terms, are Dr. Baird and the ICoC organization REALLY so committed to making sure everyone hears more than one side of the ICoC story? It's one of those things that makes you go, "hmmmmmmmm."

Baird also says:

I guess I should show that I think more than an inch deep by sidestepping the most obvious answer. :/ Why would the words "facts" and "stories" be placed in quotation marks? If Baird is going to call any of us who challenge the ICoC liars, what can I say except, "prove it"?

I don't know that I'd characterize the majority of ICoC members as "evil," but I WOULD say that I DEFINITELY saw and experienced strong undercurrents of abusive behavior, authoritarianism, and greed, not to mention spiritual elitism, while I was an ICoC member. I have continued to hear similar accounts from others who are coming out of the ICoC, even to the very day of this writing.

Don't members of the ICoC (or ANYONE, for that matter) present their own "facts" and "stories" in a way that is representative of their own experiences? A look at any current ICoC member's website reveals this clearly. ICoC members do, indeed, have their own websites - and a webring as well where ICoC members' websites are gathered together for easy access. On their websites, ICoC members speak of their organization in glowing terms. We who provide counterpoint to the typical ICoC viewpoint on the Internet have only done exactly the same thing - posted websites which contain our opinions of the ICoC. The medium is the same; it's simply our perspectives that differ. If ICoC members are able to present their viewpoints about the ICoC on the Internet, why shouldn't those who see problems with the ICoC's doctrines and practices be afforded an equal opportunity to be heard?

Whether Al Baird wishes to realize it or not, the Internet itself DOES represent for all of us an equal playing field. However, it is the members of the ICoC - NOT the "enemies of the church," or the "disgruntled former members" - who are threatened by the idea of an equal playing field. Certainly Al Baird and those who direct the ICoC understand that he who controls information is he who will profit from it. And isn't one of the ICoC's goals to control the type and amount of information that's available through any type of media concerning the ICoC? (Yes, it is.)

There is no question that the ICoC will be more profitable if negative publicity is minimized or eliminated - because when people leave the ICoC, so do their tithes and Special Contributions�. A typical ICoC tithe is 10% of gross pay (and they make a point to ensure that everyone tithe based on gross, not net pay), while Special Contribution is a multiple of your weekly tithe. 20X your weekly tithe is typical for a Special Contribution, though I've heard tell of Special Contributions of as much as 28X being mandated. To put this in real-world terms: if you are tithing $50 per week, your Special Contribution @ 20X weekly tithe would be $1,000. I and other vocal ex-ICoC members apparently constitute a very real threat to these people's livelihoods; therefore, those who direct the ICoC have a vested interest in making sure that current ICoC members aren't swayed by the opinions of those of us who challenge the ICoC's teachings and practices.

Baird also said the following:

"...enemies of the church and disgruntled former members are uniting to attack the Kingdom and destroy peoples faith."

This is simply not so. There's no way this statement of Al Baird's should be accepted at face value by anyone. He needs to elucidate for the general public some of the vague terms he uses in this statement:

Those readers who are Christians and not familiar with the controversy over the ICoC should be in for a BIG surprise when the find out exactly who, by the ICoC's definition, is actually a Christian. (Here's a hint: "who's a Christian? Not you! you have to be a 'disciple' "!)

I reject Baird's use of Proverbs 18:17 in this context as a justification of either the ICoC's existence or its actions. And in all these questions above, can Baird demonstrate how his answers - and in a larger sense, the ICoC's teachings and practices overall - serve God, and not just the ICoC organization?

As Bob Dylan so eloquently put it: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

It is not, nor has it ever been, my goal to see the ICoC destroyed. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me to think that some of the people I and others knew in the ICoC would metastasize like a cancer into other churches, carrying the ICoC's doctrines of demons with them. I would be more than satisfied to see Kip McKean and those who direct the ICoC simply REPENT. I do not ask anything here that an ICoC member wouldn't ask of anyone else.

I am also wondering why Baird would attempt to speak with any sort of authority or credibility in regard to "disgruntled" former members. What does Baird really know about any of us who are ex-ICoC members, beyond what he obviously chooses to believe? He may KNOW a lot of ex-ICoC members, but he has never BEEN one - there's a BIG difference. By virtue of being an ex-ICoC member myself, and because I wrote and maintain a website that presents a critical perspective of the International Churches of Christ (and therefore speak to ex-members and on-the-way-out members of the ICoC all the time) I feel I can speak in this instance with a level of knowledge to which Al Baird simply does not have access. With so many of the ex-ICoC members I talk to, the problem is something more like this:

"My experiences with the church (ICOC) have destroyed my faith."

Finding God again after the ICoC experience is a dilemma with which so many of us ex-ICoC members have struggled� after leaving the ICoC. Baird cannot possibly understand this until he has actually walked a mile in our shoes. He has no access to the knowledge that ex-ICoC members typically have a VERY hard time understanding why a loving God who wants all people to be saved would allow them to go through an experience such as the one they suffered as a member of the ICoC - an experience where manipulation, coercion, frustration, and financial stress are the order of the day. Yet, to their credit, I find that ex-ICoC members so often want direction and ideas from each other - as equals and fellow journeyers - about how they can regain or build their faith in God. They certainly don't want this kind of advice� from people whose lives, in their opinion, do not show evidence of the presence of Christ. I'm sure the picture of the supportive and spiritual ex-ICoC member is not the picture Baird wants the reader to have - but it is a picture that I have seen more times than I can count.

While it is true that not every ex-ICoC member continues to follow a Christian path, I am also unconvinced that people are experiencing real Christianity in the ICoC. I find that typically it's not necessarily the idea of Christianity itself which turns people off - it's Kip McKean's interpretations of Christianity that folks are finding so offensive. How can Al Baird or any ICoC member prove that what the ICoC teaches and practices today is anything more than Kip McKean's interpretations of Scripture? Fact is, there are an AWFUL LOT of religious, political, and secular self-help groups out there who firmly believe that their group alone has The Truth.

It's a cause for celebration when people simply lose faith in a wrong idea - the idea that the ICoC is the only true Kingdom� of God, or the idea that the ICoC is the only place where a person can acceptably worship and serve God. I celebrate when people learn that, contrary to ICoC doctrine, it is pointless to look for the Kingdom in a denomination (and the ICoC *IS* a denomination by definition) or church organization on earth. Jesus clearly said, when asked, that the Kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:20-21). It is only right and good that people should lose an inappropriately-placed faith - for Christians, an inappropriate faith is one that does not rest completely and totally on the finished work of Jesus Christ alone.

A Christian follows CHRIST - not a church.

In my experience both as a past ICoC member myself, and as someone who has had almost daily contact with other past ICOC members for over two years, I assert that the rule Al Baird believes is actually the exception to the rule - the exception is what best serves the ICoC's purposes. I see why it's preferable people like Al Baird want everyone to believe that people who Fall Away� are little more than "dogs returning to their vomit," or any of the other choice pigeonholing and thought-stopping epithets with which we "disgruntled" former members of the ICoC are so very familiar.

It's pretty simple: so many folks go into the ICoC looking for God - and they come out because they do not find Him there.

Al Baird also wondered aloud what kind of things would have been said about Jesus, had the Internet been available in his day? Well, probably the very same things that are written down for us in the Bible. The same things that were said about Jesus when he walked this earth - that he was insane, demon-possessed, etc. But I have to ask: what's Jesus got to do with all this? Al Baird is trying to move the goal posts. I believe he knows knows very well that the controversy surrounding the ICoC has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the deity or messiahship of Jesus Christ. Let me just be very clear about this: the controversy surrounding the ICoC concerns the more mundane, day-to-day specifics of how members of the ICoC put their denomination's own peculiar brand of Christianity into practice. While as a past member of the ICoC I still hold Jesus Christ the person in high regard, I certainly cannot and will not say the same of the ICoC organization, or those who direct it.

Because we have this tool, the Internet, my remarks will be available to others for generations to come. Al Baird's original article and my rebuttal can be considered together, and the public will be able to weigh for themselves just one more aspect of the controversy surrounding Kip McKean's International Churches of Christ. I wonder, though - are Al Baird and the other members of the ICoC really so thankful for any circumstance where BOTH sides of the ICoC controversy can be considered?