Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Removed Sections

Ann Arbor Building Project

From 2002 through 2007, New Life Church received much media attention for its building project at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, MI. According to the Michigan Daily, New Life moved into its new building and had its first service on February 11, 2007.[1] New Life purchased an abandoned Delta Zeta sorority house in 2002. GCM had approved the building project in 1999 and had helped New Life raise funds for the $2.3 million dollar project. The first site plan developed by New Life was rejected by the Ann Arbor Planning Commission in mid-2004, prompting them to file a federal lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. In April, 2005, a settlement was signed after three months of negotiations between the two parties. [2][3][4]

Hurricane Katrina Relief

Several GCM churches sent teams to the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurrican Katrina. H20, a GCM church in Bowling Green, OH sent three of its staff immediately to New Orleans, where they found three families, bought a minivan, drove them back to Ohio, and took care of them for several months. [5]

Original Discussion

Archivist's note: The proceding entries from "5/12/06" to the "Third Opinion" section are unformatted and largely unsigned discussion that stems from the original discussion of the article Nswinton 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

5/12/06 Edited first paragraph to delete "founded by Jim McCotter." The Great Commission Association is not about any one person except for Jesus.

5/24/06 Except that it was founded by Jim McCotter according to multiple sources. It's not like Jesus personally came down from heaven and formed GCA.

6/12/06 I appreciate that Jim McCotter was among a handful of people that were influental in beginning the movement. But I think to say that an individual person "founded" the movement is an overstatement. If McCotter is to be mentioned personally, than so should others who are past and present leaders in the movement. I believe this to be unnecessary. I suspect the reason for wanting to include McCotter as "founder" is due to the controversy that surrounded both him and the movement 30 years ago. Both, I believe, are irrelevent today.I think I can speak with some authority in saying that Great Commission leaders of both yesterday and today would discourage having their names exalted as "founders."

11/27/2006 I have deleted the information below because I think it's unfair to present these criticisms without dialogue. By nature, Wikipedia does not exist to serve as a tool for dialogue, but rather, as a non-biased monologue. Hence, while I can appreciate this viewpoint of GCA, this is not the place for it to be expressed. I followed the link to the the "de-Commissioned blog," where this Wikipedia article was posted, with the challenge for someone on the blog to "do something about it." I can only assume that the person that posted the below info has an association with that blog. A blog is a great place for this criticism to be posted and discussed between blog participants, but Wikipedia is not. For the record, I am the original creator of this entry. I am not a GCA leader of any kind, just a church attender. Hope my explanation here is understandable and there is no offense at the deletion. 11/28/2006 Please see the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view. It states the following: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. Please leave the criticism in as it is based on cited references of opinion about GCAC. The statement of criticism in itself is not opinion, and since the negative viewpoint is one view of the GCAC organization, in accordance with fairness it ought to be left in. If you wish to change something, you ought to include and cite stated defenses against these criticisms. Go look at any page of an organization considered to have done controversial things. You will see a section for criticism as well. The section on criticism does not express opinion, it represents it. See a later quote on the neutrality page. "Debates are represented ... but not engaged in." By presenting evidence of critism of the church means that the debate over if GCAC is a good thing or not is being represented. If you are concerned with fairness, represent defenses to these criticisms. --128.8.210.151 13:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

11/28/06 I appreciate your perspective, but disagree. I do not wish to defend GCA, the gospel, or Jesus through this Wikipedia entry. The Wikipedia entry is intended to be informational only, not to present a positive or negative viewpoint. To provide defense to these criticisms would involve trying to deconstruct accusations leveled against GCA 25-35 years ago. Modern criticism in the form of blog entries and personal testimonials are subjective in nature, and I don't care to debate, as it does not reflect well on the Body of Christ. If you feel there is inaccurate information in the original post, please point it out. Otherwise, I would ask you to discontinue reposting the criticisms section. Thx.

11/28/2006 You still don't seem to grasp the nature of neutral points of view. By placing the references and criticisms section, I am merely reporting that such criticims exist. Go read the wikipedia section on neutrality. The criticism section does not violate the npov standards set by wikipedia. --129.2.181.139 18:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

11/28/06 I understand neutrality -- neutrality is not my point.

If I may ask, what is your interest in this article? Did you stumble upon the GCA page as you were casually reading through Wikipedia? Or did you come specifically to this page, read it, and determine that in the name of fairness you were compelled to add the criticism section? Of course, it was the latter. Thus, your interest is not neutrality, but instead to post information that is designed for readers to question the integrity/practices/leadership/etc. of GCA.

The original article was neutral. It did not pass judgment on whether GCA is good or bad -- it simply stated what it is. I believe that is sufficient. You certainly have the right to your feelings about GCA. But that right does not need to be expressed by editing this page.

As I said before, I do not wish for this article to be a point by point debate, or examination, of church practice. I don't believe this is the place for that, nor do I believe it reflects well on the Body of Christ.

Third Opinion

Notable criticisms that are verifiable with reliable sources are entirely appropriate and in fact required to maintain a nuetral point of view. The criticisms section should be included in the article and expanded to say describe the nature of the criticisms. If any of the cited sources are available online then it would be helpful to provide the URL as part of the citation.

If the GCA has directly responded to those criticisms, then any response that is verifable with a reliable source should be included in the article. Presentation of similar material is often accomplished using a Criticisms section, followed by a separate Response to Criticisms section.

Chondrite 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chondrite (I guess I'm a 4th opinion). Presenting notable examples of criticism is a part of Wikipedia neutrality, not a violation of it. KarlBunker 19:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I, of course, agree with you all. To the user Behags, I can understand you being defensive about criticisms being represented here, since you birthed this page and feel quite strongly about this. But I am reverting your changes to remove the two things that you did. You see, you removed both crticisms and a legitimate link listing Jim Mccotter as a founder of GCA, formerly GCI. There is simply no reason to revert that change from the website. Since I have called in the help of a third opinion to talk this through, please comment down here, or make two discussion sections: why you feel the criticism section should not be there and why you feel the reference to Jim McCotter should not be on the page. And maybe sign your discussions with the signature button. --Mfpantst 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Because Great Commission Association churches are autonomous (non-denominational) in nature, it is the local pastors who are largely responsible for providing leadership and teaching doctrine. Therefore, while GCA churches as a whole may share many common practices, any single, local church may deviate in some ways from more widely accepted teachings and practices." If this statement can be substantiated, I will not edit it out. As is, however, it is an unsubstantiated statement and I see no reason why it should be in an encyclopedia article. --Mfpantst 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Further Edits

I'm looking to merge or link this page and the page for Great Commissions Ministries. GCM is a part of GCA and I think the pages would go better together, but I am a n00b and not sure how to do that. Suggestions? --Mfpantst 20:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim McCotter is not the founder of the Great Commission Association of churches. He is one of several men who is credited as being an early leader of the association, in partnership with others. It would be like saying that George Washington founded the United States. Erronious, though Washington's contributions were valuable. I do have a full-time job, and it is not Wiki editing. All I wished to have here was a simple, objective entry so that people looking for GCA info could find it, and if they wished, to link out to the association's website. That's exactly what the article did for many months until an individual with a bad church experience decided to exercise his/her journalistic license and add criticisms of the association to the article. To be honest, I would rather there be no article at all, then for one to exist where criticisms and defenses are debated and authors are editing each other daily. Furthermore, I would say that a criticisms section that lists references that can not be obtained be a Wiki reader (because there is no link to electronic sources) is unfair. How can the accuracy of this source material be verified? --elliot 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)behags Wikipedia has a policy called WP:OWN. Even if you create, and substanially edit, an article, other editors can make as may changes to it as they want, as long as they don't violate policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. Your intention in creating this article is not the point -- before you hit the save button, it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I understand that you wish this criticism was not in the article, but if its properly sourced, it belongs there and those that are adding it are not doing anything wrong. Cheers. Dina 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Mfpantst, for info on merging, see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Behags, since the organization has been criticized, it would violate Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV to omit those criticisms. Please do not remove the criticism or response to criticism sections. Offline sources that are in principle accessible and are otherwise reliable are appropriate. Regards, Chondrite 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Chondrite, thanks for the link on merging. I'll see what I can figure out. Thanks! --Mfpantst 21:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My recent revert

I seem to have stumbled into a content war while I was reverting vandalism, my apologies. Nontheless, I'd like to remind everyone editing this page to use edit summaries. Removing referenced criticism is bad enough, doing it without an edit summary is sure to catch the eye of someone like myself. As a third "third" opinion, I think that including "notable" criticisms of any organization is, indeed encyclopedic. Obviously, the must be verifiable, sourced. I think the editor(s) that don't agree with the criticisms can a)work on their phrasing to make them less POV if they think that's the problem or b)look for sources that contradict or respond to the criticisms and include them in the article. But wholesale, repeated removal of sourced sections of articles that one personally disagrees with is not constructive editing. Cheers. Dina 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Article

To whomever it is who originally posted this article: your original intent is not at issue: an article in an encyclopedia is suppposed to be comprehensive, and accurately reflect factual data that can be substantiated. The thing about Christians is that they're open to criticism because it facilitates dialogs: though not foolishly trying to debate scoffers (who are only there to condemn and be unfair), though they shouldn't mind them for other reasons. [I had to add this note when I revisited this a day or so later: I don't think anyone who debated on this page, by the date I wrote "article" has been someone who falls under the label of "scoffer" seeing only what they've written; I only realized this sentence may be seen offensively when it isn't meant (at time of writing, or as of time this clarification was added) for anyone I saw here. Sorry if anyone saw this and took it wrong, my mistake.] I also attend a GCM church, and yes, GCM has had issues: and for that I would not be surprised that in some places some of the churches still do, or for that matter, all of them: organizations have issues, not only of their own histories and the tendencies, but of those of the people in them and leading them. The issue is not always the issues, but the sincerity and contention to rectify any of them for God's sake, and to ensure we accurately reflect Jesus Christ as presented in the gospels and as we're to do as witness, got it? Our weaknesses aren't to be covered either, but we are to walk in the light: and if these criticism are no longer our weaknesses, then they are witness to Christ purifying us. Now, as the article's creator contends, and as my knowledge of the subject permits me to say, Jim McCotter is not the founding man of this organization: he was one of them. A couple of books have names him as "the" founder, except this isn't the case, (as far as I know), and so we should edit the article for accuracy, and maybe add a "misconceptions" section or "misconceptions in the media," and etc. It may also be reasonable, as the poster said, not to call them "founders" in that the organization didn't even start just here or there: it was an association of several campuses, and just because his or her name is better-known than others in the time it doesn't make someone a "founder" since many people (and many that are not known to any book) may have been involved. Actually saying that it even began in southern Colorado is not exactly correct, much of its beginnings are in Ohio (I think this is correct, forgive me if my memory is a little off, I'l try to remember and correct any of this information if/when I learn otherwise). I'll see about contributing when I can too for a better polished piece of information. Thanks guys, and keep personal preference out of it, keep it accurate and fair, and abide tby the rules as best as possible to which you agree when you click "save." Infinitelink 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

I modified the history section yesterday to include historic information according to a 2001 GCLI Church History document. Please note that according to that GCAC-produced document, the movement started in Southern Colorado. It also lists three "founders," but implies that there were more than those three. Here is the exact quote from that document: The Movement's Early Formation and Structure The Great Commission Church movement began in 1970 with a focus on planting and building churches that have a missionary zeal similar to that of many parachurch organizations (such as Campus Crusade for Christ). The movement began with a group of Christians (who were associated with a Plymouth Brethren assembly) at Southern Colorado University who had a fervent desire for evangelism and discipleship in order to fulfill the "Great Commission" commanded by Jesus to "Go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28: 19, 20). Three of the movement's founders were Jim McCotter, Herschel Martindale, and Dennis Clark. Jim McCotter and Herschel Martindale were a part of the Plymouth Brethren assemblies and Dennis Clark was a former staff member of Campus Crusade for Christ. The Navigators and Operation Mobilization also influenced the ministry in its early years. These men believed, as do the Brethren, that since all believers are priests, a person need not be a clergyman to baptize or serve the Lord's supper. From the beginning, the campus fellowships considered themselves churches, baptized new believers, and observed communion. Their structure was similar to many of the Brethren "assemblies" rather than that of more traditional churches. Xanthius 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Response Part II

I have fully revamped the History section. After studying church history in printed materials, as well as listening to the 1984 "Church History" sermon given by Jim McCotter (available at [1]). Xanthius 06:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

History Revamp by Xanthius

I admit, that I haven't read-through all of it yet, (kind of busy), but so far thanks for a more comprehensive history section: the article needed more comprehensiveness. : ) Infinitelink 06:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)