Roger Poehlmann is a member of the San Fransisco Church of Christ, and one of the most frequent members of the ICC to post to the Usenet. Several ex-members have publically thanked Roger for reminding them of all the reasons they had for leaving. Since many critics believe Roger's attitudes are too prevalent in the ICC, I have created this page to show how Roger regards the ICC's doctorines and churches outside of the ICC. Thanks to DejaNews, the "Best of Roger Poehlmann" is availible online from a third party, so you can see his remarks for yourself in their entirity.
Roger comments about the Rose Bowl event
This remark emerged during a debate about the actual attendance at an ICC service held at the Rose Bowl. The ICC's main website currently places the total attendance at "over 15,000." At the time, the article listed a contradictory number in another place, and a second article, since taken down, claimed an attendance of about 17,000. It appears that both critics and most ICC members now seem to accept the 15,000 figure as a reasonably accurate value.
Roger Poehlmann, however, does not. He is now claiming an attendance of over 18,000 and says anyone who claims 15,000 is "lame criticism" and presumably false, even though the official ICC site claims around 15,000! I encourage you to read Roger Poehlmann's entire newsgroup post. It's a vintage Poehlmann Polemic.
Roger Poehlmann's opinion of other churches
Normally, ICC leaders will deny, at least in public, that they believe they are the One True Church. However, it seems clear that belief is commonly held by members, and that leaders seldom if ever do anything to tell them otherwise. One example of this was a recent exchange on the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.christian.boston-church where Anton Hein asked Roger Poehlmann, a member of the San Francisco Church of Christ, "How are other [non-ICC affiliated] churches within that city viewed?" Roger responded, "How do you view the Mormons, JW's [Jehovah's Witnesses], Christian Scientists, etc. in your city?" The entire, unedited response can be read here in the archives of DejaNews. At least he's willing to admitt that's what he feels.
In fact, Mr. Poehlmann elaborates further on his beliefs that other churches are false churches in this thread, where he elaborates on the ICC's definition of "denominationalism". It's also interesting to contrast this with the ICC's attitude towards "divisiveness": He admits that "denominational" churches believe members of other denominations are saved, and that he does not consider them to be saved.
In this tirade, Roger makes a large number of unsubstantiated claims of people committing criminal acts against the ICC. The claim about Catherine Hampton having hacked into an ICC database stems from the time she discovered the ICC had posted a list of financial data on a publically accessible website, which anyone could download simply by typing in the domain name of the church's website and following a few links. Roger goes even further to claim "REVEAL is actively opposed to church members and our religion, and that our privacy, civil rights, and the law are expedible when they get in the way." He does not produce any evidence or substantiate these accusations.
This tirade is perhaps one which best captures the attitudes held by some ICC members which critics complain about most. For example, Roger claims that certain requirements in the ICC are to obeyed absolutely: "But no more of this, "I want to be in your church but I don't want to give in the SMC, be discipled, evangelize, or have to attend all the services". This isn't a matter for negotiation--if you don't want to give, don't be a member." SMC is Special Missions Contribution - usually around 18 to 22 times a member's weekly tithe. If only they told this to people as soon as they walk in the door! I highly recommend reading the entire message here.
Roger also demonstrates much of the ICC's contradictory doctorine on salvation. Roger makes several claims that the ICC preaches saved by grace, such as "The ICC teaches that we are saved by grace an[d] not by works... In the FAQ on the www.icoc.org site, this question is specifically addressed." and "I am powerless to condemn anyone to hell, nor can I grant anyone salvation. God is the judge of all mankind, not I, and we are saved by grace and not by works, so it is certainly no reflection on your works or efforts.".
However, many of his remarks appear to contrast this teaching. I have already discussed one of his remarks, in which he claims that being discipled and giving a special missions contribution is "not a matter for negotiation", and in another post, he goes on to discuss who the ICC baptizes. Remember, the ICC believes salvation occurs at the moment of baptism. Here is his remarks on qualifications for baptism:
"We do not sneak up behind people and baptize them; only those who have repented--turning away from sin and turning to God by following Christ--are people that we will baptize. Repentance is not just stopping smoking, getting drunk, sleeping around, etc. but is also repenting of sins of omission and doing the good one knows one ought to do (James 4:17). So we'd expect people to start coming to church, tithing, inviting friends to church, loving their families, reading the Bible, etc. as soon as they learn that these are ways that they can make God happy."
So the ICC claims they preach salvation by grace and that they can't judge anyone or deny salvation. Yet they withhold baptism (and, according to their doctorine, salvation) from people until they see them "repenting of sins of omission", and they claim that people who refuse to follow some of their man-made rules, such as discipling or special missions contributions, are not Christians or saved. Is this a saved by works theology or not? You decide.
