SP3 - Do we tell them this ‘stuff’ for their sake, or for ours?

SP3 – The Internet: A free marketplace of ideas

Forward: I’ve taken the liberty of focusing on Australia and China in order to express my thoughts on this subject matter concerning the use and abuse of the Internet. By doing so, it is not my intention to demean any villager DownUnder or ‘netizens’ beyond the Great Firewall of China.

Should Internet pornography be made the scapegoat by politicians in order to interfere with the lives of people?

The Internet is loosing ground as the free marketplace of ideas.

The demise of cyber space is twofold.

First, it allures to sexual perversion, especially child pornography. Secondly, the Internet offers the ultimate platform for ‘true democratization’ (freedom) where ideas run wild (unrestricted)!

More and more powers in the West, for example a country like Australia is considering emulating a type of ‘sovereign’ China-style Internet censorship.

The philosophy of China’s attitude towards the World Wide Web is mystical.

Beijing’s White Paper on the Internet intends to put out the ‘facts of the Internet situation in China’ in order to inform its citizens ‘and the peoples of the rest of the world of the true situation of the Internet in China.”

The White Paper’s Forward section praised the Internet as “the crystallisation of human wisdom”, but Internet users inside Mainland China cannot get access to all of that wisdom. Why? The true situation of the Internet culture in China is that the Chinese government’s obsession with ‘guarding’ instead of ‘guaranteeing’ its citizens’ freedom of speech on the Internet.

“The Chinese government is determined to unswervingly safeguard the freedom of speech on the Internet enjoyed by Chinese citizens in accordance with the law.”

(III. Guaranteeing Citizens’ Freedom of Speech on the Internet)

The Internet is perceived as a major threat to Chinese monopoly of power and homeland security but China cannot be without it. China’s Internet users already far exceed the population of America, which makes China an attractive destination for foreign investment. According to this BBC News article “by the end of last year [2009] the country had 384 million Internet users… The government hopes that nearly half the population will have access to the Internet within five years. That figure is nearly 30% at the moment.”

Chinese officials offer no apology for their authoritarian approach to censoring on the Net. Any enterprise on China’s Internet is done according to the terms set by the Party. China even insists on controlling a major player like Google in its own backyard and with success! Google is desperate to make inroads into China’s vast marketplace, but tactfully withdrew to Hong Kong where media censorship by law is of no consequence. Now from this vantage point Internet services on Google.cn are redirected to Google.com.hk because Google was kicked out of Mainland China! The question is will Google ever return to China? The Chinese Google-like search engine – Baidu.com by comparison dwarfs Google. Baidu.com holds 77% market share among search engines in Asia.

China’s revolutionary philosophy towards the World Wide Web and sovereign control over the information super-highway might just rub off on to other power hungry countries. Even so, the commercialisation of the Internet is hailed by Beijing’s White Paper as “a significant technological invention of the 20th century.”

Here, we must be mindful of other significant ‘20th century technological inventions’ that quickly end up under the control of governments. Think about the Wright brothers’ first powered airplane flight that took off in December 17th, 1903. Soon pilots could not fly at will over international airspace! Cyber space free range, as we know it is perhaps over. The Hippie or yuppie Internet era is gone. Wandering spiders are out to control your cyber space.

Communication policies in the West already propose to act, as ‘gatekeepers’ by guiding public opinion in what is appropriate to view on the Net. The Australian government unapologetically proposes to ban “pornography and inappropriate material” from reaching public schools and private homes. Good luck!

Australia’s controversial Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy thinks the Internet is ‘nothing special’ and like books and films should be censored. Conroy in 2007 defended his government’s actions for the sake of protecting children even if it means going down the Chinese road.

"Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the Internet is like going down the Chinese road,” he said. If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."

(Conroy announces mandatory internet filters to protect children)

The Australian government associates ‘freedom of speech’ with child pornography! Perhaps, mate, Aussie politicians reason like that DownUnder, but surely many will disagree with Conroy’s thinking.

Obviously child pornography is repulsive. However there is no need for governments to step in other than continuing to fund police departments in order to track these criminals down. Regulating the Internet will lead to enormous abuse of power where real freedom of speech will be at stake. Some would argue there is no need for nationwide filters because of available software that can achieve the same results without the government’s interference. Here parents can take full control over their children’s Internet activities rather than giving Big Brother control over their lives, which in the end will undermine a parent’s ability to make decisions for their family. More so, nobody can ever dream of safeguarding the Internet. It is as if one is trying to safeguard on individual’s very thoughts from harming someone else! Parents will have a false sense of security thinking government will take care of children’s safety in cyber space, while it is not true.

"Censorship will not catch a single pedophile, will not cause a single image to disappear from the Internet, and will not protect a single child."

(Mark Newton, an engineer with ISP internode)

It seems true, all politicians preferred to enter the debate on regulating the entire Internet through the back door of child pornography. China too vigorously regulates the Internet under the same disguise to look after the interests of little children.

We should never think paedophiles under the cover of ‘freedom of speech’ have a right to engage in their evil activities. If we do then any crime imaginable can be committed under the pretence of ‘freedom’, which is absurd. Here people like Conroy feel justified going after paedophiles but in order to get to them they need to create new laws for a platform that thrives on freedom of information and speech. This is where the one-dimensional spectrum of a political white lie leads to multi-layers of lies, convincing masses that the government is the real Nanny.

Perhaps we’ve enter a time where governments opt to challenge the free marketplace of ideas in order to test their political will over the mighty system put in place by people for the people?

Nevertheless what does the Australian government mean by intending to filter and block inappropriate material? Does this imply protecting ‘leadership’ from political scandals, cover-ups and hidden agenda’s?

People empowered with attitudes of true democratisation are able to expose any villain via websites, blogger sites and chat forums. The freedom of using the Internet should not be sacrificed in the war against paedophilia.

If Conroy wants to protect the Australian children from a few paedophiles in cyber space he should consider his own governments track record of protecting the young and innocent. Which is shocking to say the least.

An old African proverb states: “It takes a village to raise a child.” But what if the entire village abuse children? Think it is not possible? Think again.

Australian children were exposed to the worst kind of state interference known in the free world. Not even South Africa’s apartheid laws had ever discriminated against children in any way as Australian governments went about the business of educating indigenous children and welcoming non-indigenous children to its shores.

Every country in the world has a dark spot.

Aboriginal children were forcefully removed from their parents and placed in the care of the government and church missionaries. A shameful policy instituted by white Australians. In New South Wales, at least 8000 children were removed from their parents from 1885 and 1996!

In April 1997 the official Bringing Them Home Report was released. John Howard, former Prime Minister turned his back on it, “Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies.”

Remarkably former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, was the first PM in Australia’s history to formally apologise to the Aborigines saying “sorry” to a “stolen generation” (February 13, 2008). Australia has yet to recover from past actions and policies.

Rudd followed up his stunt the following year (November 16, 2009) by apologising to the “forgotten Australians” the thousands of institutionalized children and child migrants shipped from Britain to rebuild Australia after World War II. Many were abused physically, emotionally or sexually while in care. Survivors to this day still suffer the effects of the child abuse.
The Mullighan Report “Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry” found abuse and death occurred between 1910 and 2004!
The source of these atrocities is the United Kingdom. Former British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, issued an official apology in February 2010. In total 130 000 children were sent to former British settler colonies from the UK to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia).

It is hard to belief that the world took any notice of these white men’s atrocities but knew all about Nelson Mandela’s incarceration! Even today conversation about the Aborigines disadvantages and painful memories of the settler’ past is not considered polite conversation in Australia.

But the Internet does not care! A person encountering these incredible truths about Australia’s settlers’ history can hardly believe that it actually happened so recent considering advances made by Australia.

Conroy’s Internet policy in the name of protecting Australian children and his reckless speeches endanger Australia’s freedom of speech. Will he censor such historic “inappropriate material”? Only time will tell.

There once stood a wise man in a certain village. The villagers pressed him for an answer – ”Who is the greatest?” But he knew their evil intend. He called a child and had him stand among them. “Here he stands!” the wise man left for another village. His profound insight into humanity is yet to be discovered by us all.

My next article in the SP series: SP4 – The Lion on the Web Never Sleeps

SP2 - Do we tell them this ‘stuff’ for their sake, or for ours?

SP’s origin and philosophy

Who made-up the term 'spiritual pornography' in the Boston Movement?

Boston Movement leadership referred to anti-Boston resources in the late 80s as ‘stuff’, until Preston Shepherd first introduced the term spiritual pornography, which was formally adopted by Kip McKean in 1989.

"You know, there is a proliferation – literally, throughout the world – of not only anti-cult material – little packets, but booklets, books, videos. Preston Shepherd calls this stuff ‘spiritual pornography."

(Kip McKean, They Hated the Dreamer, August 25, 1989)

What is intended with the term 'spiritual pornography'?

The words spiritual + pornography forms a paradox (an opinion that contradicts itself; para contrary to – doxa opinion).

Shepherd’s opinion conflicts with common belief.

Spirituality has nothing to do with pornography and vice versa.

Nonetheless, this statement seemingly absurd or self-contradictory contains some truth!

Here Shepherd’s opinion becomes ‘truth’ for all members of the Boston Movement and future generations when it is applied to the forbidden.

Church members engaging in taboo activities such as reading information on the Internet that opposes the views of the Boston Movement/ICOC commits a kind of spiritual pornography. It is like reading an actual Playboy magazine. SP has become the excuse to suit leadership’s ideas of what the members ought to think.

"… Some people say, ‘Well, hold it. If you're strong enough – if there isn't anything wrong in this stuff, then why shouldn't I read these anti-Boston materials?" Well, let me ask you this: you've been a Christian for a while, and prayerfully you're strong in the Lord. Why can't you just open a Playboy and just see how it goes? Let me tell you something – I've been a Christian for 17 years, I don't dare get close to one. And you shouldn't get close to that spiritual pornography, the thing that's driving you there is curiosity, that is Satan – get it out of the house."

(Kip McKean, They Hated the Dreamer, August 25, 1989)

Even today, all members of the ICOC are restricted to investigate opposing views on the ICOC teachings. The main objective of the inner doctrine of spiritual pornography is to control the amount of negative information concerning the church group and to shelter its members from the outside world.

Does the Bible support the concept of 'spiritual pornography'?

No, the Bible clearly points out that spirituality has nothing to do with any form of impurity or wickedness.

“Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness”

(2 Timothy 2:19 NIV)

Therefore pornography can never become spiritual!

My next article, SP3 will investigate The Internet: A free marketplace of ideas

SP - Do we tell them this ‘stuff’ for their sake, or for ours?

Intro

Jen Chambers, former webmaster of kipmckean.com received a fabulous compliment from the pro-McKean faction who declared this lady was responsible for the worst persecution we’ve received from any website on the internet!

Chambers literally mirrored their views and opinions about the ICC (and ICOC) by posting only ICC (and ICOC) related material. By doing so, downloading McKean’s mp3 and entire sermons transcripts Jen was falsely accused of deception, out-right lies, and a complete distortion of the truth because according to the pro-McKean faction she has falsified herself as Kip with her website kipmckean.com. But, Chambers react on her new SP.com website by stating: I did not give my commentary on the subject. I used only McKean’s words.

The pro-McKean faction could not demonstrate the truth or falsity of Chamber’s actions on kipmckean.com, other than making a personal attack on her character. Such a devious step, often used by the ICOC is termed an ad personem argument, whereby the issue at hand or the soundness of the argument is deflected back towards the person to influence an opinion. To the fellowship of the pro-McKean faction, Jen Chambers is portrayed as a fraudster, while we know who is the actual culprit in this saga.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ has never copyrighted The Beatitudes, nor did the apostle Paul signed off his epistles with a ©-symbol. Does that mean preachers today can use such material freely and in its entirety and demand copyright for their sermons?

How is it that whatever Kip McKean think and say have suddenly become copyrighted? Audiences critical towards Kip after the ‘transfer’ of kipmckean.com is warned by the pro-McKean faction not to violate the rights of Kip – pictures and quotes – and our movement by using copyrighted and unauthorized content from our any of our websites.

Perhaps, Paul the apostle would react to this as he had done with the Galatians. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing COPYRIGHT, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? (Galatians 3:2,3 NIV)

Chambers moved on with a new website aptly entitled:
SpiritualPornography.com

It merits pausing and reflecting on this topic of spiritual pornography.

Speaking of Perverse Things

Self-imposed isolation (3 John 9), fence-building (Galatians 2:11) and burned bridges (Acts 15:39) are the consequences when God’s fellow workers no matter who they are trampled under foot God’s field and destroy God’s building.

Any of these three examples mentioned above over a long or short period of time have the potential to destroy a church group, whether Christ is preached out of false motives or true.

Paul the apostle foretold this will happen in Acts 20:30 (New American Standard Bible) and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Here “the disciples” who belong to the Lord (Acts 9:1) might become disciples of men! How does this manifest amongst Christians?

Self-imposed isolation happens when individuals refuses to co-operate in the gospel of Christ.

They love to be first and their opinions matters more than anything else. They may enforce their opinions onto the group in such a manner – even to the point of excluding others who might disagree with them. The elder comforted Gaius to persevere in a manner worthy of God, unlike Diotrephes, 3 John 9,10 (New American Standard Bible), who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.

The characteristic of self-imposed isolation leads to a conduct not worthy of God - a lack of love. Other symptoms are evident such as pride, independence, slander or malicious talk, spiritual abuse, interference and dictatorship.

Combating a self-imposed style ministry is to call attention what the individual is doing. Expose the mannerisms not worthy of God, for example gossiping maliciously. Bring to attention other issues that undermined God’s standard of Christian conduct – a lack of love, inhospitality, interference and dictatorship.

Fence-building happens when individuals confuses the correctness of Scripture with wrong conclusions.

In other words, a doctrinal outlook not base on the gospel of Christ but man. For example: Jesus as Rabbi, Master, Lord and Teacher taught his disciples but we may not conclude teaching our own disciples for Him because Christians are not Rabbi’s, Masters, Lords and Teachers (Matthew 23:8-10).

A Rabbi is a Teacher but a Christian teacher IS NOT A RABBI! The word ‘Rabbi’ qualifies the meaning of the word ‘teacher’ in Matthew 23:8. We may have teachers in Christ’ church, but not Rabbis. In other words, Christian teachers may NOT have disciples. What Jesus forbids is an organizational TEACHER / STUDENT relationship among his followers. And this exactly what is advocated in the ICC and ICOC! Their doctrine on discipleship developed due to the result of fence-building as observed in the book of Galatians.

Here, Paul asks us, Galatians 1:11 (New American Standard Bible), For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Fence-builders always claim their new insight comes from God.

Even the apostle Peter and Paul’s fellow-worker, Barnabas were led astray by powerful persuasion from fence-builders advocating circumcision.

The characteristic of fence building differs from self-imposed isolation – not acting in line with the truth of the gospel. Here the slightest doubt in the mind of an individual might crack under pressure from peers who advocates man-made teachings. Other symptoms are evident such as fear, doubt, separation and hypocrisy.

Combating a fence-builder style ministry is to publicly confront and oppose whomever to his face! Present the facts of the situation before and after in a logical manner. Ask questions and make statements. Anchor your argument not on your own opinions but on the foundation of Jesus Christ.

Finally, burned bridges.

So much is said about the sudden departure of the apostle Paul and his fellow-worker, Barnabas. No matter how you might ‘interpret’ their disagreement – good or bad – the result of their short-lived friendship end up with burned bridges! Never to be unified again in the New Testament.

The friendships started up in Acts 11 with much promise for the future fizzled out abruptly with a sharp disagreement a few chapters later on!

Such is life.

It is in our human nature to disagree even to have strong opinions that might differ radically with others perception. What we need to appreciate from this lesson of burned bridges is the element of ‘loss’ for the sake of an idea.

Reading this passage personally always saddens me, Acts 15:39 (New American Standard Bible), And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.

Burned bridges do not originate with an argument. No, they happen because of self-esteem, which makes the situation disagreeable. Discord is not out of the question whenever a person imposes needs over others who disagree.

The disagreement between Paul and Barnabas seemingly never affect the Gentile ministry. However, it surely ruined a good friendship in the Lord.

Perhaps, we can take comfort despite the element of loss that life goes on and not to make too much of it, but remain focussed on the tasks ahead. Both men just done that for sure!

Characteristics of burned bridges might be bitterness, pride and stubbornness.

Combating burned bridges is to dowse the flames quickly before they run out of control. Listen to logic not emotions and try to reach an agreement. If in reason no compromise can be made rather depart on friendlier terms. Easier said than done☺

Some individuals in church groups have separated ways by causing factions. Such occurrences can never be justified in the same light of the disagreement of Paul and Barnabas.

The motto for disciples in the Lord – not men, should ring true, 1 Corinthians 3:9 (New American Standard Bible), For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

The “Precious Bird”: Campus Evangelism

Read about Campus Evangelism on my icoccommentary blog.

In the name of Kip McKean

To the novice, if any man other than Jesus Christ, demands Loyalty (with a capital ‘L’); Worship and Reverence; such a man violates the first three of the Ten Commandments; at best just know you deal with a Cult Leader! And run for your life!

Get Your Real Answers Here…

Kip McKean’s Cyber-Ministry scored undoubtedly the largest victory when they managed to obtain full name rights of KipMcKean.com. The website first belonged to Jen Chambers who now runs SP.com. McKean’s followers rejoiced because according to them, it will mark the end of the worst persecution we’ve received from any website on the internet!

It appears McKean got his victory because the website hold his name and according to them, Chambers – has falsified herself as Kip with her website kipmckean.com.

Hard to believe, Harding! Check your facts!

Another stupendous article by Ron Harding, title, “History Speaks For Itself” indicates all the inner workings of a cult in the making! The basic elements such as loyalty-worship-and reverence for the Leader (with a capital ‘L’) are clearly present. Indeed, repetitively, history speaks for itself! The archived article in my view offers the following detraction found somewhere in Exodus.

I am Kip McKean, your true Leader who brought you out of the dying Churches of Christ, out of mainline slavery and autonomy!

You shall have no false websites before me.

You shall not make for yourself a website to ‘go anywhere, do anything, and give up everything’ for such a slogan bears my intellectual property and persona. Remember, it is only I; Kip McKean who still believe world evangelism is possible!

You shall not submit to ‘Absolamic followers’ or worship with them; for I, Kip your Leader, am a jealous Leader, punishing any one who hates me, but showing love to those who follows my core convictions.

You shall not ‘through deception, out-right lies, and a complete distortion of the truth’ misuse the name of Kip McKean, for our new ‘Kingdom attorney’, Xavier Davis and our Cyber-Evangelist Ron Harding will hold anyone guiltless who ‘violate the rights of Kip.’

In the name of Kip McKean, no website ‘will no longer violate the rights of Kip – pictures and quotes – and our movement by using copyrighted and unauthorized content from our any of our websites.’

By Order of Some ‘Odd’ Movement’s shenanigans



PS: What is in a name?
For all attention and purposes, please take note that this blog is not Kip McKean’s nor will it ever become his domain! The name ‘Kip McKean’ was available on blogspot! First-come, first-served! Here, I reflect as a former member on the subject matter of Kip McKean and put my views for all to read. That simple!

Kip still God’s man

The man in the mirror, Thomas Wayne McKean is best known as 'Kip' and he is never going to “make that change” …ever!

Ron Harding has just completed and published on Kip McKean.com an exhaustive biography of that man in the mirror he describes as a true man of God hailed as a hero and a modern-day prophet liken to King David. Harding concluded: My prayer is that this commentary will silence Satan’s lies about a true man of God, Kip McKean.

Hardly Harding!

Harding with his first hand knowledge about the palace revolution which resulted in the destruction of Kip’s global movement deal punches right and left in order to get to the truth.

Not only is Henry Kriete the most obvious target sited as an extremely bitter evangelist in London but knives are out for Andy Fleming, Scott Green, Al Baird, Ferguson, Jacoby, Laing, Wyndham Shaw, Bruce Williams, Marty Fuqua, Peter Garcia, the Johnsons – the truth is that these people eventually have all force out the leader that even they for years had wholeheartedly agreed was “God’s man” – placed in authority by God to lead His movement and maintain unity.

Their rebellion is compare to an “Absalomic spirit.”

Now Harding is desperately attempting to prove them all wrong for returning to mainline theology by ignoring God’s “timing” for McKean to lead the ICOC. In time, God raised-up David to lead again – just as He has done with McKean! In the Bible, God always “raised-up” and “took out” His leader in “His” timing. God expected His people to trust Him and to wait on His timing instead of rebelling against Him and His leader.

McKean’s biography inherently exposes the group to be cultic because their leader is it with a capital ‘L’ despite trying to dispel the wrongs done by others serving under McKean’s gutsy leadership.

Needless to say, Harding’s biography on the McKeans touches on several aspects of the truth. Of first importance is the majority of the former ICOC leadership indeed embraces mainline theology.

The mainline church of Christ is now unequivocally part of the Second Episode.

In the past they have distance themselves from the former ICOC – accusing it a cult! For now, the International Christian Church (ICC) and the International Churches of Christ Co-operation Churches (ICOC) internal squabbles over Kip offer a slight distraction to the real issues at hand – the teachings of the Churches of Christ belief system.

Here, on the Internet, the mainliners’ church doctrine and belief system received little attention comparatively to her former foe! Now that most of the churches of Episode One era supports the mainline theology it will be interesting to see how the mainliners will react to discipleship relationships as taught by Kip. Let us not forget those of the “Absalomic spirit” also embraces it since 2005.

Eventually change will come for the mainline church of Christ when people everywhere will start to investigate its doctrine. All because of one man who’s followers thinks he is still God’s man.

Now would that not be something!