Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Mr. Pharoah Man's suggestions

Looong time reader and first time poster. I'm a GC member (pro GC bias) that's been sitting on the sidelines, not really wanting to get more involved than just reading. I feel like I know some of you through your posts, but I don't believe I've ever met any of you (those whose identities are known).

Seems like a good time to jump in. Here are some changes I would personally like to make (starting at the top). As you'll see, I think a lot of this is just garbage, both on the pro side and the con. The article can and should be much shorter.

Roots

Since Jim McCotter has his own article, I'd like to see this section shortened to the following (with a link to McCotter's article). "Great Commission began as an evangelistic work at the University of Northern Colorado in 1966, led by 20-year old student Jim McCotter. According to McCotter, by the end of the first year 12 people had joined him, after 1966 there were thirty, and in the following years it "doubled and tripled." The movement spread to other cities in Colorado, as well as Las Cruces, New Mexico, in the form of missions or "works". In 1967, McCotter was drafted by the Army to serve in the Vietnam War. During basic training McCotter met Dennis Clark, and on McCotter's return from Vietnam in 1970 he met Herschel Martindale. Clark and Martindale joined McCotter's evangelistic efforts. Today, Clark and Martindale are both members of the Great Commission national Board of Directors.

Weak Support. I'm in favor of moving what we can to the McCotter article, and using a copyedited and somewhat modified/reduced version of your suggested alternative. Nswinton

Weak Oppose. Looks to me like your version is a mini-bio of McCotter, while the current section is a mini bio of his actions in the begining of the blitz. Mfpantst

Oppose. McCotter's importance to the founding of and success of the movement is vital, and you will find this collaborated in most newspaper articles/books/papers about GC. See past occurrences of this debate in the archives. Xanthius

Support. moving most McCotter info to his article. Gatorgalen

Blitz

"In the late 70's, some college students who had joined the young movement began to leave. A dozen newspapers, primarily in cities home to public universities, reported criticism of the movement. Further criticism would follow (see Criticism for more information).

Oppose. I disagree. This section could possibly use some copyediting, but I feel that much of it is necessary to demonstrate the culture within the movement at the time. Nswinton

Oppose I'm with the prevailing opinion on this one. Mfpantst

Strongly Oppose It wasn't just college newspapers. Xanthius

Neutral - sounds fine, I would keep the last sentence as is. Gatorgalen

GCI

Move the Wellspring info and contain it in the Criticism section .... Change McCotter paragraph to: "In late 1986, founder Jim McCotter announced his resignation from GCI, stating a desire to utilize his entrepreneurial abilities in an attempt to influence secular media for Christ.

Weak Support. I think the McCotter info should stay, but could possibly be re-worded or reduced. I'd be fine with the Wellspring info bring moved down to the criticism section. It's relevant there, but not directly relevant to the historical development of the movement. Nswinton

Oppose and support I'm all for the wellspring part, but not the Mccotter part, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Mfpantst

Neutral. Wellspring information relevant to history of movement, and seems to fit into the timeline section better than anywhere else. Xanthius

Strong Support. This has been needed for a long time, there's a section for criticism for a reason, already mention it in prior paragraph. Gatorgalen

Move Wellspring down?

I see that there is moderate support/little resistance to the idea of moving the Wellspring info down to the Criticism section, and out of the GCI section. I'd like to propose pulling "Shortly thereafter, Wellspring Retreat and Recovery Center, the world's first accredited cult and abusive religion recovery center, was formed by several ex-members of the movement.", and placing it at the end of the first paragraph in "Criticisms", right after the words, "Cult-Proofing Your Kids." I'd obviously like to re-word it slightly and appropriately so that it would flow well with the rest of the paragraph. Thoughts? Comments? Nswinton\^talk 00:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Mfpantst

Maryland

I do not believe this is relevent. It is an extremely isolated incident, 20 years ago. It MAY have been locally newsworthy at the time. It certainly is not now.

Support with Conditions. I think this could go in the criticism section, but lets all be honest, it's about as relevant as the previously discussed building project section. I'm fine with it being mentioned and sourced, but it's as big as the whole "Roots" section right now, and it's covering an isolated event from the historical development of the movement. Nswinton

Oppose I think that its important because its not focusing on a single church, (there are many in the maryland area) Mfpantst

Strongly Oppose Removal Reliable sources for this are as prominent as The Washington Post, and this paragraph sheds light on an important event in the movement's history. It might seem weird, but that is because it was weird for the organization to attempt to do something like enter the political arena in such a fashion. It did, however, receive a ton of national media attention, wasn't just about one church but rather the organization as a whole, and it is important not to remove it simply because it seems out of character compared to the rest of the movement's history. Xanthius

Strong Support Exactly, irrelevant. Gatorgalen

Suggestion

I think this section is relevant, but could be shortened and could be moved to criticisms instead of history. Once again, like I suggested before, introduce it in the list "Maryland Political Controversy," state the event In 1986... 12 ran for office. Result: None won. Quotes about controversy: GCI denied involvement, quotes from outsiders. Mfpantst 16:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd Support That. Nswinton\^talk 19:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GCAC and GCM formed

"In 1989, Great Commission International changed its name to the Great Commission Association of Churches (GCAC), and is known today as Great Commission Churches (GCC). Also in 1989, Great Commission Ministries was formed. Its aim was to "mobilize people into campus ministry by training them to raise financial support and by equipping them for campus ministry." .... Deleted Bovenmeyer info, as he is not noteworthy to the movement. Also deleted IRS info, as it is not newsworthy (would only be so if the tax status had changed, which it did not.

Oppose. Dave Bovenmyer is currently on the board, and was the president of GC at one point. Also, the IRS incident was very significant, and could become it's own section. This event was relevant to every other similar campus ministry (Intervarsity, Campus Crusade, etc.). It was a test-case, as noted, by the IRS. If a different decision would have been reached, it would have had a dramatic influence on "deputation" and christian campus ministry in the US. Give me some time and I can establish much more notability here. Nswinton

Oppose. ditto here to above Mfpantst

Neutral Need to think on this. Xanthius

Oppose Bovenmeyer is very noteworthy to movement, IRS thing was test case as nate mentioned. Gatorgalen

Today

Remove the part about the budget, since the link has been left unverified for more than a year

Support. Nswinton

Support. Mfpantst

Support. Xanthius

Neutral It is true though, if we had a source. Also, we should mention GCM's budget size somewhere. Gatorgalen

I've removed the budget statement for now. I agree, the budget size would be notable if it could be sourced, and placed appropriately. Nswinton\^talk 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you all feel about the GCM Connect as a source? It is a quarterly newsletter sent to all GCM supporters - basically has miscellaneous stories, and then in the summer issue includes the summary of the annual financial report. Gatorgalen 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a self published source. Should be usable under the linked to terms of the Verifiability policy. Among other points, material used should be: 1) not contentious, 2) not unduly self-serving, 3) not make claims about third parties and finally the article can not become primarily based on such sources. GRBerry 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs and values

Church Government Great Commission churches are autonomously led by local pastors (the term "elders" may be interchangeably used). Because of this autonomy, GC churches may vary from one another in some areas of doctrine and worship practices. Final authority rests with the local pastors. Pastors may be assisted with ministry leadership by deacons (or female "deaconness.")

Local churches that affiliate with the national GC movement principally agree to GCC's Statement of Faith and Core Values. Accordjing to the Statement of Faith, its churches "are independent under the Lordship of Jesus Christ," cooperating within the association in conferences, mission efforts and for accountability in doctrine and ethical practices.

...Remove section on women and authority, as this is not unique and can be found in the Statement of Faith and Core Values.

Oppose. I agree that the three sections under "Other Beliefs" need to be removed. They're all redundant, as they're mentioned in the Core Values document already. If these sections get mentioned, lets mention every core belief, or none of them. Can we all brainstorm together on a fair and appropriate way to showcase the beliefs and values of GCA? Are there some other articles that have a good example? Might this be a good place to split and form a second article that would appropriately outline the beliefs and values? Nswinton

Oppose. I generally agree. I think that core beliefs aren't very wiki in general to have here though. However, I'll go all or none with nwinston on this one Mfpantst

Oppose These sections have been argued over and argued over and have finally reached a place both sides have been content enough with for a while. None of the changes seem like they will particularly improve the article. Xanthius

Oppose Something needs to be done, rewritten... I'm personally for a detailed layout of the beliefs, but it's either one or all. Those three are written somewhat POV, but they are also a bit notable. Probably should have theological things like grace v. works in there too, other articles do. Gatorgalen

It looks like future improvements here would probably be along the lines of either severely shortening this section, or completely re-writing it to be brief and appropriately all-inclusive. Nswinton\^talk 23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the B&V section should be too long. I don't consider anything in the listing all that controversial, standard evangelistic/conservative christian churches doctrine to me. I may or may not agree with it, but I would suggest cutting it down and not listing too many specifics. Although I find these to be what alot of churches believe, I wouldn't know that GC had an official policy about women in leadership or the third unless I read this article, so it did save alot of digging work (not easily discerened from public GC site) however, I just don't feel it belongs in wiki.Mfpantst 16:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, Mfpantst. Maybe the best thing to do would be to have someone like Rursus re-write the section with some input - like as an outsider. He seems to have the most pure (NPOV) viewpoint of the movement at this point, and would be able to give objective due weight. Nswinton\^talk 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Partnerships

Cut everything after the first sentence. The rest is not noteworthy.

Oppose. I completely disagree. This section is noteworthy. Nswinton

Oppose. Ditoo to nwinston here too Mfpantst

Support Keep only the very notable partners. Xanthius

Oppose Gatorgalen

GCM

Remove the building stuff. This is hardly noteworthy inside GC, let alone outside.

Strong Support. I completely agree. Nswinton

Strong Support. Mfpantst

Support Xanthius

Oppose Suppose I should have spoke sooner... the building project is very large and GCM pushed to all donors (on all receipts), cost 2.3 million while GCM's budget was 14 million. Yes, I have sources for those. Gatorgalen

Building section has been moved here for the time being. I would probably be open to a well-sourced/copyedited version being re-inserted. I see your point, Gatorgalen, and I think it's potentially noteworthy. Nswinton\^talk 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

Cut. Not newsworthy. Every denomination in America sent relief workers.

Support. If we let this stay, we might as well let every minute detail of GC's ministries be listed. I went down there with 20 people from my GC church the week of the hurricane, why can't I be in the article?! ;) Nswinton

Support. Agree on the every denomination part Mfpantst

Support Xanthius

Neutral I had other articles I planned on adding to this section, but never found time... there were a lot of articles mentioning it, lots of different churches, also demonstrated the partnership with Samaritan's Purse - perhaps a simple note on GCM partnering with them often for disaster relief in the partnership seciton(Katrine, also Andrew and Mitch - GCLA got started through partnering with SP, essentially) Gatorgalen

The section has been moved here for now pending further discussion. Nswinton\^talk 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gatorgalen, do you think that the bit about partnering with SP for Katrina relief could be (very) briefly mentioned in the "Partnerships" section, and heavily sourced as a sort of compromise? Nswinton\^talk 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, I think that would be ideal. Something simple along the lines of "Several GCM and GCC churches, especially those on college campuses, partnered with Samaritan's Purse in sending teams to the Gulf in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina". Anything more than that would be hard to source at this point (the andrew/mitch stuff and gcla esp.). Also, GCM has on their website even now a link where people can give to Samaritan's Purse thru the GCM website if they want to help in disaster relief (makes sense since GCM doesn't really do disaster relief itself). Gatorgalen 01:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead and make the edit on then. It's one sentence, and I can't see why anyone would be very opposed to it. Nswinton\^talk 19:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech

Cut it all. No longer newsworthy.

Weak Support. This can be reduced quite a bit. Being on LKL and GMA is noteworthy. The video, and many of the quotes, etc. are not. Nswinton

Weak Oppose Think maybe this section is actually still worthy of being here Mfpantst

Neutral Xanthius

Oppose This will always be noteworthy - biggest college massacre in our country, most media coverage GCM's every received. Except for that Huckabee guy (Rude). Gatorgalen

Past Ministries

Cut. Info 20 years old and not newsworthy.

Weak Oppose. Could we just move this stuff up to it's appropriate place in the Background section? Nswinton

Oppose Just because its old doesn't mean it goes off wiki, but could be moved in the article Mfpantst

Strongly Oppose Xanthius

Support - just words taking up space, doesn't mean anything to anyone. Also, the GCM-GCS sentence should be changed - it isn't accurate. Gatorgalen

What about a minor ministries section in the background or something? Also, gator, how would you reword the GCM-GCS section? Mfpantst 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd support putting it as a small subsection in the background section. Nswinton\^talk 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Publications

Cut. Not relevent (perhaps on the McCotter page if these were McCotter publications). Who cares if a few GC pastors have been quoted elsewhere.

Weak Oppose. How about move the old publications info up to it's appropriate place in the Background section, and move the bit about relevant mag to the "Today" paragraph or something. The Exodus International bit, I would support cutting. Nswinton

Weak Oppose Above reasoning, although weaker. Mfpantst

Oppose Publications were an important part of the movement's past, as can be read about in books and newspaper articles on the movement. Xanthius

Oppose Some of those pubs were actually historically significant; also, the other modern stuff helps give perspective on GC's place in American christianity. Gatorgalen

Funding

I would move to "Beliefs and Values" section if it must be included. I don't think its newsworthy that a denomination's support comes from its parishioners.

Support moving this to the Beliefs section (or somewhere else that might be more appropriate. Funding doesn't need to be it's own main subheading if it's just that one paragraph. Nswinton

Support Mfpantst

Weak Support Maybe cut funding information, sure? I haven't really seen that type of information in other religious organization's articles, and it seems hard to fully verify, especially given the number of subsidiary organizations this movement has. Xanthius

Weak Neutral Um, the funding doesn't come from parishioners at all, which is notable given that most denominations do have strong support bases within. Vast majority of missionary support with GCM comes from donors in non-GC churches. Perhaps this should be clarified. Gatorgalen

I have moved the funding, by dividing it into two sentences and assigning it to the intro and to the GCM section, respectively. Did not change content, just positioning.Mr. Pharoah Man 18:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

Edit: Criticisms of the movement began to surface in the late 1970s as early movement members departed. In addition to critical newspaper articles, several cult researchers placed GC and its affiliated branches on watch lists. The movement was cited by two books about abusive Christian groups -- Michael D. Langone's Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse, and Dr. Paul Martin's Cult-Proofing Your Kids. In addition, former GC member Dr. Ronald Enroth published two books mentioning GC -- Churches That Abuse, and Recovering From Churches That Abuse.

By the early 1990's, the critical attention GC had previously received was diminished, though not entirely dismissed. In 2002, former GC member and professional counselor Larry Pile said he would not refer to GC as a cult, but instead as a "Totalist Aberrant Christian Organization". Pile believes the movement is "Christian because they hold orthodox beliefs," and yet "aberrant on secondary issues."

Cut the rest ....

Weak Oppose. I agree that the criticism section needs to be copyedited, but I think your suggestion over-simplifies this fact. This section is probably the one with the most potential for volatile disagreements, and I'd personally rather have it be appropriately written and contain sincerely notable and appropriate info. In my opinion, I'd like to see many of the above edits happen first, so that we can all collectively focus and discuss the copyediting of the Criticism section together. Nswinton

Strong Oppose Lets see this get cleaned up in a technical sense, but I think what is there should be there. Mfpantst

Strongly Oppose Don't like the way you've worded this. Also, Enroth is not a former member of GC. He is a highly respected cult researcher. Please see his article: Ronald Enroth. Also oppose what I believe is OR, the stuff about "critical attention diminishing." Find me a RS that makes that analysis and include that, don't speculate or analyze sources and come to conclusions, that is definite OR. Xanthius

Agree Something needs to be done - this section is way longer than needs be, especially given that it is mostly very old. The presentation of the section seems POV, designed to make it the focus of the article. Guelph should definitely be cut, either entirely or to one sentence. Gatorgalen

Starting Suggestions: shorten

What if we went to a list format (bulletted) with short prose for each criticism item. I think each that is in the article should be mentioned, but are considerably long in description. for example, the Guelph could be shortened to "In 1989, officials at the University of Guelph banned the movement from its campus following a three-month investigation" and maybe a quote or two as well. But the "This was the first time a religious organization had been banned from the campus in its 25-year history" isn't really necessary, and I think with the other sections in the criticism section this could be done as well.Mfpantst 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd Support that, if it was done well. We'd want to avoid listcruft, but if the list is manageable and briefly mentions stuff (bigger things are sourced anyway, if people are curious, they can follow links). Nswinton\^talk 19:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Responses to Criticisms

Cut Tom Short stuff. He is one man. His comments are, by his own admission, personal, and not a formal comment from the movement's leadership.

Neutral. I can see what you're saying, and I guess I could see this going either way. Nswinton

Neutral. Not sure how I feel, if he really was the national student director for GCI when he wrote the article then it stays, otherwise it could probably go. Mfpantst

Oppose Tom Short wrote that piece as a response, as a leader of the organization, to the criticism they were receiving at the time. It's one of the few articles of its kind, and provides a sourced GC leader's response to criticism to counter the rest of the criticism section. Basically, I have tried to find a RS that responds to the criticism, and that is the best there seems to be out there. Xanthius

Weak Oppose I think Tom's comments are relevant. The 1993 GCM publication needs to be added though. Gatorgalen

I don't want to hack away at the article without responses from the players here, but I feel strongly that these changes should be made.Mr. Pharoah Man 14:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pharoah's response

Thanks for considering my suggestions. Obviously, there is not agreement in every area. Where there is consensus, I trust that one of you that understands the html coding will make the appropriate changes.

For those areas where we disagree, I hope we can further dialogue. For example, saying that McCotter has not visited a church in three years ... that's an unproven and unverifiable thing, even though its probably true. Its best to cut stuff like this. The "critical" newspaper articles are, in fact, mostly in college towns (but note that I was misquoted by one of you. I didn't say they were college papers, even though they are -- I said they were in college towns, which is true. Ohio State "The Lantern", U South Carolina "The Gamecock", Wheaton "The Sunday Journal" Manhattan Kansas "The Daily K Stater", U of Maryland "The Diamondback", Kansas State, Iowa State "Ames Daily Tribune".)

The problem (in my opinion) with the article is one that GatorG and NSwinton probably would concur with ... its heavy on the past, which chronicles the start of the movement and the part that's most easily (and perhaps righfully) criticized. Most (maybe all) church movements started zealously, in response to what its leader(s) considered to be lackluster adherance to the Bible's principles. Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Wesleys, even Christ himself, were drummed out of their respective circles of society because they were zealous, radical. GC started on college campuses as a radical ministry. It was led by young, zealous people and attracted young, impressionable people (18-22 years-old). Most (admittingly not all) of the "criticisms" deal with that timeframe and that setting. I can't say whether GC "learned" from those experiences or not. But, there aren't any college newspaper articles from the last 15 years quoted in this entry. Nor is there much of any info (i.e. criticism) relevent to what the majority of GC churches are today -- community churches filled mostly with adults and their children.

The response of some might be, "Well, if you want the article to reflect more positively on GCs current status, provide citations of such." We all know that's hard to do. GatorG tried with the sourcing of stuff like Hurricane Katrina, Virginia Tech, ministry partners and associations, the church building. That's all positive and current, but not very newsworthy, which is why I said cut it. Unfortunaely, churches mostly make news when the news is bad, not when the news is good.

I'm rambling, and know that Xan and Mf will mostly disagree anyway. Just thought I should let you know where I'm coming from.Mr. Pharoah Man 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Further Response

Sounds like you want a current events wiki of GCM. I don't think thats what wikipedia is all about. On that, I pretty much disagree with everything you just said except one part. The McCotter part is referenced, but I do not personally know if any of the references mention the church part. Someone with access to those references should check it out. If they mention it, leave it in. Otherwise I suggest we leave it out. Newsworthy is not the definition of what goes in wikipedia. Its a *pedia, not a news service. Mfpantst 15:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Wikipedia entries should be newsworthy (sufficiently reported on by the news media), or at least noteworthy (impacts society in some way). That's why there is no entry about me -- I am neither newsworthy or noteworthy. In regard to GC, the most newsworthy timeframe of the movement was 30 years ago, hence the (mostly) old references. The most noteworthy timeframe is now, but it is not reported by mainstream media. As such, the article has a negative bias based on news sources and events that are considerably dated. Juts my opinion.Mr. Pharoah Man 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like for you to read wiki policy. Just start with here WP:NOT and then read the NPOV, Verifiability, NOR, and bio parts. Furthermore, check out WP:N on wikipedia's notability guidline. Newsworthy is not a guidline, however. Also note that notability is article level, not content level

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines.

I don't think that the major contested parts of this article ammount to WP:ATS, so unless anyone objects that comment, I'll move on to address WP:RS. Thinking and reading more, I think this article is a good candidate for doing sub articles over removing content. For example, you suggested summarizing the criticisms section. It is long, I agree on that. However, by doing a summary you also remove content. I might rather suggest we make a summary and spin the content off into a sub article. I would suggest doing so for this page into something like a criticisms and responses sub-page. Then we could copy-edit, and also move into that sub-page relevent sections from other parts of the article and write a clear, concise summary page on the main article. What about the rest of you, how do you all feel about sub-articles to cut down on length, as I think we all can agree this article isn't easy on the eyes? I feel that most of the content should be here, just perhaps not within the main article. Mfpantst 16:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery

That was/is a long list of suggestions. Unsurprisingly, some are generally supported and some are not. I recommend just doing the ones that are generally supported as a first step. Where there is agreement, it is worth implementing.

Then take the time to work through the ones where differing opinions were received. It may be possible to find consensus and compromises with examples of doing it. If need be, consider using temporary subpages such as /Draft or /Example (in the Talk namespace, not the main article namespace) to show what is meant. Concreteness can help. GRBerry 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that above the long list has been reformatted so that each suggestion can be discussed individually. Good idea, whomever had it. Anyone care to mark off in someway those that were done? (Maybe, though not necessarilly, with a diff to the actual doing?) GRBerry 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation Templates

On a completely different note, I took several weeks off from wikipedia, with the hopes of coming back with fresh eyes and helping to do this article some good. Upon returning, I realized that everyone quit using citation templates. That's basically like not flushing the toilet after you take a deuce. If you source something, add a proper citation template. If this article is ever going to be worth something, we've got to start making responsible edits. I cleaned up about 20 raw links tonight, and there's 30 left. Whenever you add a source for anything, please use a full and appropriate template, not a raw link. Realistically only about 4 people ever edit this page, so you know who you are. Nswinton\^talk 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a late response to this: I suggest looking over WP:Citation templates. In part it says "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to another without consensus." I personally am one of the editors who finds them annoying; if you would like to "clean them up"(which in this case is actually just changing it to your preferred style), feel free, but I really don't care enough to. P.S., I want everyone to note that - templates are NOT required (see recent discussion about the 1993 GCM prayer letter), nor even encouraged. They are extremely optional. Gatorgalen 06:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should further clarify. I am hoping that this article doesn't stay in "Start-class" purgatory forever. I have this outrageous dream of actually seeing consensual editing bringing this article up to GA class. Check out Wikipedia:What is a good article?, and note that in-line citations are not required, but are preferred. Also, as a point of common sense (at least to me), there ought to be a standard throughout the article. Since there are about 80 uses of templates, and about 25 raw links here, it makes sense in my mind to make a full transition to templates, which are smaller and less intrusive. Out of curiosity, do you mind saying why do you find them annoying? Nswinton\^talk 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with moving this page out of what could be termed development hell, I just don't think the ongoing edit war is going to help at all. Yesterday someone re-made edits which I might surmise Gatorgalen would consider ok, but were really vandalism. If we don't get consensus, then there's no way this page gets past start-class in my mind. At least not with the extreme defensive and agressiveness on both sides thus far Mfpantst 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, hello! I'm really offended. If I'd send those edits I'd have reverted them too. Looks like somebody's making a lot of assumptions as to my intentions. I thought you were trying to be neutral. I've already stated how I think the article can be improved, and it's not by removing criticism wholesale. I'm just trying to keep it from being POV as an article, which it leans toward even now. You need to apologize. Gatorgalen 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Gatorgalen was making different edits when the war started. I don't know who the IP editor was, but it seems that while the edits were similar, it's not fair to connect Gatorgalen to them. No need to get offended, anyone, and no need for cheap-shots. AGF :) Nswinton\^talk 14:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so Gatorgalen was making many edits, and he and xan both got involved with an edit war with each other. Xan started by reverting edits made by Gatorgalen. Gator's edits were the following: , , and . He actually made 4 edits, but one was a tag edit, and minor. But in edit 1, he removed the maryland section. Edit 2 he removed the Guelph section, and Edit 3 he added a letter. Now I'm ambivalent about event 3, but as pointed out before, a church published letter may or may not fly. So he did this without actually discussing this and then xan reverted it. Then the two went back and forth on the edit war until Whereupon I tagged the page with the neutrality and put in a rfC. And I in no way meant to categorize gatorgalen with the latest edits, whoever that was, but the edit war I really mean is the one I've referenced here. Recent edits are more evidence that both sides feel strongly about the issue. Sorry for the long response, I just wanted to clarify what the issues were and why I mentioned the recent edits. It would be worthwhile to find out who does those edits because they've done it before and that's not cool. Mfpantst 14:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro reword

Since the article name was changed, and GCAC changed to GCC, doesn't the intro have to become more general as to include the individual parts of the movement, and not just the community churches? What if the intro were reworded to say the following:

“ The Great Commission church movement is a broad term used to describe the entities associated with an evangelical Christian movement formalized in the USA in 1970. The largest of these organizations today is Great Commission Churches (GCC). Other associated organizations include Great Commission Ministries (GCM) and Great Commission Latin America (GCLA). The movement has grown in size and scope through its focus on church planting in the United States and abroad. Between 1978 and 1994, the movement attracted criticism for alleged authoritarian practices and a high degree of control over members (see Criticism). GCC formally acknowledged these criticisms in 1991 (see 1991 GCC Statement of Church Error). GCC is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals, and one or more organization within the movement has continuously been a part of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability since 1992. ”

Thoughts???Mr. Pharoah Man 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Actually, yea, I think that's pretty well written, Mr. Pharoah Man. Nicely done. Nswinton\^talk 16:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Good revision Mfpantst 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted this into the article. If anyone has any problems, we can easily revert it. Nswinton\^talk 14:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)