Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Overall Revamp by Gatorgalen

Hello everyone. I just wanted to give warning that I have done some research into our topic and am going to be undertaking an extensive overhaul of this article over the next few days/ week. I have good reasons for the changes I'm going to make, which will include a title change, and I ask that anyone who thinks there is an error please discuss it here before doing any reverts so that I can have a chance to explain them if need be - there is not enough space for explanations in the edit summary section. Thanks to all in advance Gatorgalen 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What new section/changes? One of the purposes of a discussion page is to talk about major changes before they are made, to prevent edit wars and other such conflicts. This article has seen its share of those, so perhaps discussing the "extensive overhaul" you are planning before you do it would prevent a repeat of history. Xanthius 19:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not of any one section. None of the changes are major - more of a lot of tweaking on minor things. The only thing that might be considered major, and this has been discussed before and never quite resolved, I think, bc of confusion. As to the founding, I think the article should move to the date when it was actually founded, and 1965-1970 history should be noted as the "Roots", prior to the organization's actual founding. Then in 1970 you have the beginning of a movement. Then in 1983 you have the first founding of an official organization (GCI). I think dividing the history into those three "phases" would clarify things greatly. The impact this would have on prior discussions would be the issue of who the founder(s) was/were. Among other changes - removing GCM logo from the info box (logo isn't used for whole organization, as pretty as it makes the box look). Also another issue is that the history seems to be largely based on the accounts of avowed critics - this doesn't seem to make the best balance. So I think we need to balance that somewhat, not so much with the facts as with the wording of them which (and I noted this long ago but had neither the research nor the time to change them) had many signs of weasel wording. There are some things which are neutral but seemingly irrelevant (McCotter's financial status). You'll see the rest - some I may ask you (Xanthius) to provide the sources for as I know where they may be found but do not personally have them to make exact quotes from - especially in the history I think things that are worded critically (implicitly) should either have quotes or be discarded in favor of simple facts. I know that rambles a bit, but you'll see as I edit. Gatorgalen 22:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing I want you to look for me is the "Heavenly Vision" part. According to original research I've done (which is not admissable here, obviously, which is why I'm not changing it myself), it was shared as the Heavenly Vision at only one conference but rather was generally called "The Great Commission Vision". I think that would be a good thing to edit. Gatorgalen 22:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox explanation. The way I put it is necessary for it to remain consistent, as a box and as an article. First, GCA puts that as their founding date - I know of no reason why anyone would contradict that. Except for a misunderstanding regarding the srtructure, which is very common. I don't blame anyone for not understanding the structure - it took me a long time to. If you will refer to the GCA page, you can see that the current structure is GCC, GCM-C, GCE, and GCLA all being separate organizations (as they in fact are both according to the govt and themselves, administratively). BEFORE anything was every FORMED, there was a movement (which is not an organization), and BEFORE that there was a man with a vision. So to be accurate, the current organization, GCA, which all along is what we have claimed the article is about, was only formed in 1983, as GCI, and later the name change. Blitz to GCI was not a name change but in fact the forming of an organization. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the Blitz formed in 1970. Also, it makes it impossible to list a founder, as each phase has different individuals. The inbox should reflect the organization, which is GCAC, as it is about the current. We have the rest in the history - it is impossible (and unsightly) to make an infobox that represents all four. GCAC is NOT a synonym for GCM or Blitz. This is widely misunderstood, and taht is why I delved into it and endeaveroed to make an accurate formulation. I hope that makes sense. I know it's complex, and that is why I want for us to use the talk page rather than have an edit war. Gatorgalen 02:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The GCAC, GCI and "Blitz Movement" pages all redirect here for a reason. It's the same organization. It just changed its name several times. The 1984 conference history sermon confirms this. Newspaper articles confirm this. The current history section of this article supports this. Stating that the organization was formed in 1983 is misleading and inaccurate, and may be an attempt to escape some of the problems associated with Jim McCotter's leadership from 1965 to 1986. I will provide sources and correct this at a later time.

You are simply incorrect. Simply, not deviantly or purposefully. There is a failure to understand what makes an organization. In this particular instance, as I said earlier, there was a man, then a movement, then an organization. It is a fallacy to equate them. It is likewise a fallacy to equate an association with a denomination or missions organization (just an example). GCAC and GCI ARE the same organization in that there was only a name change. This is why I have listed the 1983 date, the founding of GCI, as the founding date of GCAC/GCC. Organizations such as the ECFA and the federal government would list 1983, for example. It is misleading to put any other date. Also, I don't see anything that would lead us to contradict ( and see no precedent) what the actual organization states as it's founding date. The Blitz Movement is well credited in the history section and the intro. Also, as you noted, 1983 is still in the Jim McCotter era. I suggest you XYB. An earlier date simply is not accurate. Gatorgalen 08:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That is why I listed the various dates. The early movement was founded in 1965, the "Blitz Movement" was started in 1970, they incorporated as GCI in 1983, and changed their name(s) to GCM/GCAC in 1989. I feel these dates should be represented in the organization box, and not doing so is misleading. Remember, this is not just a page for GCA, it is a page for GCI and "The Blitz Movement" as well, all of which are the same organization at different phases in its history. Perhaps we can have the thoughts of some other editors on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xanthius (talk • contribs) 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I understand what you're saying. When you say "this is not just a page for GCA, it is a page for GCI and "The Blitz Movement" as well, all of which are the same organization...", two things come up. One, they are not the same organization. There wasn't any organization prior to 1983. The Blitz and early years were very very different entities - essentially loosely affiliated churches with the same ideals. I understand that you don't want that part to be missed - I don't think anyone does. It's very clear in both the intro and the history that those are a part of the history of GCA. However, it is misinformation to say that they are the same organization. Somewhat similar to saying the United Methodist Church is the same as the Wesleyan movement. The UMC has a definite start date, although wesleyan history is definitely relevant. It's not a perfect analogy, but the point is that no organization existed in the true sense prior to 1983 (i have no idea when incorporation happened, probably later, if you meant actual government incorporation by that term. I'm not sure if you meant that or organization). Second, and this is the important thing, by necessity the topic of this article is the current organization. That is the way encyclopedia articles work. This is an ongoing thing, and the article (as the title suggests) is about GCA. The history is obviously relevant, and that is why it is included. But again, it is simply false to either call GCA and Blitz the same organization or to list the blitz date as a formation date of GCA - I could see possibly doing a separate article about the Blitz (i don't think there'd actually be enough info to do that, but I could see it being done). In lieu of that, the current infobox is the most factually accurate. Gatorgalen 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Except it's not the same, because Wesley wasn't involved in founding United Methodist Church whereas Jim McCotter was involved with both, and the article notes others as well. Lots of new groups like this one change their names or structure. It seems from previous deletions, however, that this particular movement is reticent to admit it. I understand from your user page that this is a subject very close to your heart, but please try to be objective for the sake of the neutrality of the article.

What I'm seeing is that GCAC is a direct outgrowth of The Blitz, with no other splinter groups or mergers having been noted, as is the case with the UMC article. This could probably be better supported, however. If we can agree on this, perhaps disagreement over the founding date can be avoided. What might instead be helpful is a specific delineation of historic events in outline. If attempts to assert a specific founding date continue to be elusive, several dates could be laid out, noting the reason for their importance, with establishment of the first regular meetings, first church, first expansion, first meeting between those churches, first official conference, and date of incorporation, and then any modifications to that incorporation all being noted. The more information, the better. ClaudeReigns 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First, this is what the GCLI: Church History paper, published by GCAC, says about the history dates of Great Commission:

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).

It also says: In 1983, Great Commission International, led by Jim McCotter and Dennis Clark, was formed to provide services such as publishing and fund raising for the developing association.

The GCC website says the following as well:

The Great Commission church movement began in 1970 with a focus on planting and building churches that are devoted to Jesus Christ and fulfilling the Great Commission [[1]]

It also says that: In 1983, Great Commission International was formed to provide services such as conferences and publishing for the developing association.

According to GC's own documents, GCI was formed to "provide services such as publishing and fund raising for the developing association." These are not two separated organizations. Jim McCotter and Dennis Clark were still in national leadership as they had been since the 60's and 70's (respectively). The mission and churches in the movement didn't change. It was not the beginning of the movement by any means, but that is what is implied by having the "founding" date listed as 1983.

I could go on, but I propose we simply remove the infobox rather than continue to argue about the "founding date" of a movement that has had so many names. Campus Crusade for Christ, the Association of Vineyard Churches, and the The Navigators (organization) articles don't have an organization infobox, and I think it only causes confusion in this particular article. Xanthius 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The former version of this page had a top paragraph that read:

The Great Commission Association of Churches (GCAC) is the current name of an Evangelical Christian movement started in Colorado the mid 1960's by Jim McCotter, with other notable early leaders being Dennis Clark and Herschel Martindale, among others. The movement at first shunned any denominational nametag, later being known as "The Blitz," then later as Great Commission International (GCI), and finally renamed to its current name, with the campus arm being named Great Commission Ministries (GCM). [1] [2] It is also known as Great Commission Churches (GCC) and Great Commission Association (GCA). [3] [4]

I believe this was much more NPOV, and accurate, than the current one. The current one implies that founding date of the movement was 1983. That was the founding of GCI (See my previous comment) but not the founding of the movement. This article is about the Great Commission movement and its various names ("Blitz Movement", GCI, GCAC/GCM). I believe we should return the top paragraph to its former form. Xanthius 13:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: What is the purpose of the paragraphs that discuss the church members running for political office? It doesn't seem relevent. Anyone can run for office, regardless of religious affiliation. Certainly if we were to look at Wiki articles for other church denominations we wouldn't find a description of members who ran for office (with the possible exception of the religious affiliation of former presidents). Is it included because it is just a little weird, and there is an unspoken assertion that it smacks of conspiracy? If that is the reason, it is shallow. I think those who are editing the article should remove this.

Second question: What constitutes the placement of the "advertising" banner? Isn't this information documented and quoted directly from the organization as its statement of faith and values? If so, it isn't advertising, its simply a statement of its beliefs. "advertising" denotes the desire to persuade. Of course, that is the entire goal of Christianity, to persuade a belief in Christ. But I don't see this section as advertising. Again, I would ask the editors to consider removing the banner.

Third, an observation: I agree that this article should discuss the movement of what is known today as the various branches of Great Commission. The article should start with the inception of the movement in its earliest form (the 1960s), and show how it has matured over the last 40 years, including the current roster of names and ministries.12.163.50.38 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)anonymous 3/5/07

I'll address the first question: It was relevant enough to be mentioned in the the Washington Post (a national paper) at least three times, as well as in the the Montgomery County Sentinel and probably other papers. It's an aspect of GC history that is interesting, received a lot of media attention, and thus it is encyclopedic. Also, it's not just a list of past church members who ran for office at various times. That would not be very notable. It's a national news story of 12 GCI church members all running for office in the same state at the same time, denying they coordinated it, and the reaction from the press and other candidates. The conspiracy element you may sense was a part of the newspaper article itself, implied with such statements as Republican Chairman Albert Bullock accusation of "deceptive campaign tactics" and his comment, "If this isn't orchestrated, then this is an incredible coincidence." The Washington Post obviously felt there was enough evidence of conspiracy to run the story.

Second question: The wording of that paragraph seems a bit self-promotional, I can see why the editor flagged it. With the exception of the bit on seminary, everything else there seems lifted from GC websites.

Third question: Agreed.

Xanthius 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good reply, but I think the first item about the political background is still off the mark. Specifically: "Speculuation from Maryland political leaders": What leaders? Who, and where is this documented? "None of the GCI church members running had prior political aspirations": How do we know this? Lots of people think they can do a better job in office than the current incumbant, but for a variety of reasons, they never run. This seems like conjecture to say that "none" had aspirations. Again, documentation? What was the nature of the documented press conference? A cult awareness group was invited to a political press conference? Why? Was it to specifically to label GC as a cult, or to imform the public of their opinion? That seems odd. If there is specific info about this press conference, this part of the article should be rewritten to reflect it. If not, this part should be deleted, as it is too sketchy.12.163.50.38 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What leaders? According to the article, Democratic Central Committee Chairman Jay Bernstein, and Republican Chairman Albert Bullock.

A cult awareness group was invited to a political press conference? Why? Was it to specifically to label GC as a cult, or to imform the public of their opinion? They were invited by Jay Bernstein according to the article. It doesn't say why he invited them It's important to note, though, because it was a contributing factor to the "shouting match" that broke out, which was the headline of one of the Washington Post articles. CAN did mention GCI's sudden apparent political aspirations in their monthly newsletter, and was concerned at the time because a group they felt was a cult was suddenly attempting to enter the political arena. Xanthius 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Added more info to make it clear why CAN was mentioned in that paragraph, and in the article. Xanthius 18:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some specific notes on things Xanthius reverted (some of which I reverted, from a few days ago - I hadn't been able to submit them yet. Hopefully this will help clarify some things 1. The quote about GCLI was clearly referenced - I recommend reading the GCC history link which I put there. That information is there, clearly. Also, the appropriate action for something like this (especially given the fact that I told you beforehand that I put a lot of thought and research in this revamp) is to a)"assume good faith" and b)if you are unsure of what source, put a "needs citation" link or put it in the talk page rather than simply reverting. I also suggest that you read the WP:Attribution article and guidelines. This will help avoid such mistakes in the future. 2. I did not move those quotes without reason. I think you're being nitpicky here honestly, but I will find the source. 3. I disagree that the Vineyard being in that book is irrelevant (obviously since I put it in). It is of interest to the reader, and also if you look at the Vineyard article there are interesting parallels. More importantly, it allows the reader to see the scope of the book, as well as that it included other well-known groups. Also it helps suck people into wikipedia ;) 4. Good edit regarding Enroth's book title. 5. Regarding Larry Pile - I think you, and many others, have trouble grasping this. It is impossible for someone to be a member of anything other than a church affiliated with the Blitz movement. The same goes for GCAC. This is the nature of a movement - there is no membership of the movement. The same is true of any church association - that is why they are called associations. This does not just apply to GCC - it is true of, for example, the Southern Baptist Convention. An individual person is a member of a church affiliated with the SBC. This is just a matter of accuracy. 6. Despite this? That's definitely not NPOV. Plus, the prior statement was fully accurate. 7. Another good edit with Aberrant classification - I think it might make sense to also clarify that Pile and Martin are/were co-workers at Wellspring. 8. With the edit regarding early members and the NT - note that the "source provided" is actually a criticism. The issue here is NPOV - the reason i changed it was so that it would be something no one would dispute - if you'd like to put MacDonald's version in the criticism, feel free. 9.I believe I may have been the one to initially call GCM the "missionary mobilization arm". However, I was incorrect. If you will refer to the structure on www.gcachurches.org, you'll see that they are actually organizationally different. They both have different boards, different churches, different executive teams, HQ's, etc., and GCAC does not control GCM as an arm. This is not commonly understood, and I think has changed even in recent years as GCM developed into its own entity. Also a note - the reason I changed GCAC to GCC in several instances is that they express a desire to be represented as such on their website when an acronym is used - see no reason not to respect that, also allows reader greater understanding in real world application. 10. The beginning of the movement - this is according to the GCC site. If you would like to say otherwise, find a criticism. However, I know of no precedent for questioning an organization's declaration of when they began. I realize you don't respect the organization, but as editors we should endeavor to show some. 11. BTW, True or False? - You are Adam Hirschhorn. 12. I find your shot about my objectivity quite hilarious. Whereas I rely on actual sources for the structure, you seem intent on relying on your own understanding from experience. Also see #11. 13. The advertisement tag is bogus - that particular section has been developed by consensus over a long period of time. Don't know who the unregistered user is who put it there, but I suggest removing that tag. That's all for now. I have plenty more thoughts I'll add in later. Gatorgalen 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I didn't revert that, you did.

2. By all means, do provide sources that link those quotes specifically to the church error statement. As it stands you have no provided such sources, and so I put them back where they belonged.

3. It might be relevant in an article on Churches That Abuse, but this is an article about GCAC. The book covers a wide variety of "abusive churches," but listing them here is inappropriate.

4. Thanks.

5. Seems like a semantics thing to me.

6. Not sure why it wouldn't be. Larry is a recognized expert on the movement, having been quoted by several newspapers and counseled numerous former members.

7. I'm fine with that. Would need a source of some sort.

8. Why not have both sources listed then?

9. From the GC history document (published by GCLI): Then, in 1989, GCM (under the initial leading of Dave Bovenmyer) was formed primarily to mobilize people into campus ministry by training them to raise financial support and by equipping them for campus ministry. ... Today, GCM acts as the campus and international mission agency for the Great Commission Association of Churches.

They are two independent but at the same time co-dependant organizations. They basically took the one organization in 1989, and split it into two that work together constantly. For instance, the GCLI document also states that: In 1989, GCM assumed responsibility for running the summer Leadership Training (LT) program for college students.. GCLI is hosted by GCM. So aspiring leaders of GCAC churches actually get trained through GCM. Obviously they aren't that different if one organization is training members of the other. Last, please see [2] on the GCM website. It reads: GCM is a member ministry of the Great Commission Association of Churches (GCAC) based in Columbus, Ohio, and acts as the international missions organization of GCAC.

If you prefer the term 'member ministry' over 'campus arm' I could work with that.

10. Again, the GCLI history paper states: 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).

Also see "The History of GCC 2006" [3] which reads: The Movement’s Early Formation The Great Commission church movement began in 1970 with a focus on planting and building churches that are devoted to Jesus Christ and to fulfilling the command given by Jesus to “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28: 19, 20).

There are many other sources which list the founding of the movement between 1965 and 1970. Remember, by GC's own words GCI was formed to "to provide services such as publishing and fund raising for the developing association." So GCI wasn't the beginning of this movement. It was the beginning of a publishing/fund raising incorporation to assist the developing movement. There are already many sources in this article that confirm that this movement existed prior to 1983, and had the same major national leaders (Dennis Clark, Herschell, Jim McCotter) in the 70's as it had in 1983. GC's own documents confirm this.

11. No, I am not Adam. By the way, I'm not interested in discussing personal details about my life to you, and I wish you would stop trying to ask me questions about who I am in real life, what websites I visit, and so on. It is irrelevant.

12. I find your shot about my objectivity quite hilarious. Whereas I rely on actual sources for the structure, you seem intent on relying on your own understanding from experience. I don't believe that's a fair accusation at all. What sources have you added to this article other than GC websites? I think I've added at least three dozen new sources to this article, possibly more.

13. I've given my thoughts on this, I'm waiting to see if other editors chime in.

Xanthius 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Galen, please "comment on content, not on the contributor." Thanks. ClaudeReigns 04:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Claude, welcome to wikipedia. I recommend you take your own advice, given that in your very first edit you questioned my objectivity. I don't know what your history/experience/knowledge base (obviously, as with many editors, you have some interest in the topic given that it is your only topic edited) is with GCAC, but as with everyone I suggest sticking to sources rather than experience. Just friendly advice. Also, so that you understand my question to Xanthius - he has claimed multiple times to be an objective observor but his posts repeatedly suggest otherwise - I have made it clear what my involvement with the topic is from the beginning, and I think it would be beneficial for us all to have that in the open given the topic. Especially given that both you and he have brought up the information I voluntarily gave about myself. What applies to one applies to all. Gatorgalen 05:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, welcome to wikipedia. I heard it was a tough crowd. Actually I have written my own article before I joined, but it's probably going to sit in wait for a while because it's only about some obscure politician, and needs to get 50 hits or something like that. As my user profile says, I love wikipedia. I use it as my go-to guide for just about any subject that comes up. Once I learn to play hardball with you cats I'm going to try to edit where the real challenge is. Prime-time television! That's weird that you would ask him about his identity though. Is Adam Hirschhorn related to the topic? That definitely left me with questions. Also, I was a little embarrassed you ditched a couple of my edits. Since GCAC plants churches a lot, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that pastors are internally rather than locally chosen? And since churches don't vote congregationally on finances or staffing decisions, like in the SBC or UMC, isn't it really more accurate to say that the pastor of the church has the final authority? Did you just need me to source that or is there another perspective? When I was talking about being objective because of closeness to the subject, I guess I should have said something more to the point about cutting and pasting an advertisement from the official website etc. etc. but I didn't want to be rude or anything. I'm sure GCAC doesn't mind getting a plug :D Anyway I'm sorry if I made you mad or anything. I sure could use your help learning how this works so my T.V. articles will be first class. ClaudeReigns 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to embarass you. Those are common misunderstandings really, and again I don't know your level of real-life experience and/or research regarding this particular organization. The problem with saying that GCAC does things internally versus locally regarding pastors is this, and again it's a common misunderstaning - GCAC doesn't plant churches. Churches within GCAC plant churches. The GCAC model is churches planting churches. The most accurate definition (as implied by even the name) of GCAC is an association of churches rather than a movement (i'll eventually re-edit this in the intro paragraph if no one else does - i'm in a hurry right now, don't actually have much time to contribute as my grandfather died a couple of days go). So unlike, for example, the SBC, GCAC doesn't assemble a team of people with no relation and send them somewhere to plant a church (there a couple exceptions to this in volatile regions I think). Rather, a local church sends a team from that church, which is not unique to GCAC historiclaly. So everything rests with the local church. Also, as far as church government, there's no "one size fits all" model for leadership in GCAC. Some have solo pastors, some have co-equal pastors, some are teams of pastors with one who is senior, a pastor with a team of governing elders, etc (This info is in the GCLI material, fyi). That's why it's more accurate to say it rests with the local church - I don't know if you were involved with one and developed your perception that way, but the level of congregational involvement varies across the association. Same with the SBC actually - when at home I attend an SBC church which doesn't have the typical monthly "business meetings". As far as Adam Hirschhorn goes, there is a blog of people generally opposed to GCAC where one contributor goes by that name. That blog is currently referenced a couple of times in this article - it shouldn't be, as there is a lot of hearsay rather than fact there. I love your coyness. Gatorgalen 23:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, great! Maybe we should show examples of the diversity within GCAC of the different churches so it's really clear that there are different types of local governance. "Example Church, for example, in Location, State holds monthly meetings where congregation members vote by consensus on Matters, Matters, and more Matters; but another example is Different Church in City, State where Elder decides matters of Matter; yet another example is Diversity City Congregation where they See If The Wool Is Wet so God's annoiting is clear." Sorry if that sounds flip, I'm just trying to create a template sentence that would show (instead of just tell) what you are talking about aaaaand it should be pretty easy to source if you have some good examples in mind. What do you think? Did you catch the Gideon reference? :D Also, what are the biggest churches in GCAC?

Nother thing. There's still got to be a clearer way to explain the way pastors are chosen aaaaalll the pastors I've read about are not from the the locality where they serve. I think what people may have been concerned about with the feeling of "it's an advertisement" is that it sounds like gee, I don't have to go to school to be a pastor and I could be the pastor in my own city" which isn't the case at all. To be a pastor you have to be really dedicated and under the authority of your leaders for a really long time, plus I'm guessing you get planted when it happens. More than that because it is a complicated decision. Am I right? We can't leave it like an ad, but we can be realistic and detailed. I mean really, what would you tell a guy if he was brand new at your church and he was like, I wanna be pastor someday! You don't wanna burst his bubble but you don't wanna set him up for disappointment later either.

Last thing, the thing I didn't get to because it is way beyond me. I have never ever ever heard of the people directly under the pastor at church referred to as "deacon". I didn't edit it because I didn't want to put an incomplete list or anything inaccurate for nowadays, because the section is called "Today". Also, there are people under the people who are deacons but not called deacons, like what was called "small group leaders" and "co-leaders" in the past, but I don't know now. If I went back and tapped someone on the shoulder and said, "Excuse me, who is your deacon?" I am posssssitive I would get a funny look but then I always get funny looks :)) Something to think about for later ClaudeReigns 00:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Working backwards - Deacons is another thing that not every church has, and which is done based on the character qualities in 1 Tim 3 also. The majority of small group leaders are not deacons character-wise. From my perspective it looks like the qualities are pretty similar and so a lot of time people just work towards elder and jump to that. In my church, long ago they had deacons, gradually didn't have anymore and didn't have candidates to replace them, then over the past few years we raised up 4 elders locally, giving us a total of 5. Also, on this I think your question "who is your deacon" is kind of assuming that the SBC model is the typical (granted, biggest US denomination) or only model of what a deacon does. As far as I know in scripture, deacons weren't assigned a group of people to minister to in the church, but rather roles. Regardless, you might get looked at weird for that in many non-SBC churches where there are several deacons all for the whole church.

If a brand new guy showed up and was like "I wanna be a pastor someday" I would be like "right on dude, let's do it, let's make it happen, let's cooperate with the Spirit in developing those character qualities and see". I know at some point in the past GCAC had an "every man an elder" ideal - it's no longer like that, but they do believe any man can be one, based on the first verse in 1 Tim 3, "if any man desires to be an elder, he desires a good thing". So basically they focus on the character of an elder - I remember at one Faithwalkers conference they challenged every man to consider becoming an elder. Elder is synonymous with pastor in most GCAC churches, if not all (I think all).

I'm not sure what you mean about "getting planted when it happens". Maybe you're under the perception that when pastors are raised up it is for the purpose of sending them out to plant a church. If so, that's not the case. "I don't have to go to school to be a pastor and I could be the pastor in my own city" is exactly the case, except it should be "be a pastor in my own city". I think perhaps you aren't familiar with the co-pastor, co-elder ideal within GCAC. the predominant preference is that there be co-elders, so each church is constantly try to raise up new elders to lead beside the current ones and/or eventually replace them. I'm not sure how long or how deep you were involved with GCAC, but it sounds like you're trying to compare it with SBC (I come from an SBC background too). One big thing with church planting is that yes, in that case the elder(s) is/are from out of town, but each church plant is from a local church. So the elders are raised up in the locality, then more are raised up in the plant city as it gets going. There are a lot of examples of this, but I'm not sure where it would be written historically.

I actually have no idea what the biggest churches are - the one at U. of Michigan and the one in WV are both pretty huge i think. the problem with trying to put forth an example sentence is that there are a lot of different models operating due to the autonomy issue. this kinda emphasizes the "final authority rests with the local church" concept. I think you're the only one who really felt that was ad-like - this article's been changed and re-changed over and over, and that's one of the few things that hasn't changed much. Honestly, although I recognize that for whatever reason you don't want the GCAC phrasing to be there, they've put a lot of time and thought into making statements that are accurate for the whole association. The more we change that, the more we risk overlooking something or being in. I don't think we need to reword it - we're just editors, putting information out - we're not reporters or editorial-page editors. One thing that might help is adding a clarifier to the deacons part, "(not every church has deacons) or ", in some local churches". Gatorgalen 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If I can jump in here with a comment, guys.. Sharing personal stories to back up points is pretty much irrelevant to this talk page/article. We can't source personal stories, we can't use them for anything. We can't even guide the article based upon them. All we can work with is the text from reliable sources, such as newspaper articles, research papers, and (to a lesser extent) the gc websites. The sharing of personal stories is only going to bloat the talk page with anodoctal information we can't use. Just my two cents. Xanthius 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Advertising" label

I'm just wondering, but why was a significant portion of the article labeled "advertising"? It looks to me like the statements which nearly all churches make so that people know what they're about; I don't think it's quite advertising, it's simply info from the source and it's a valid piece of the article for the sake of information. What are other opinions on this?Infinitelink 23:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't label it, but I agreed with the label. While it did lack one element that advertisements usually include, 'create a problem', it did offer the enticing notion that the church continually raises up pastors from within without formal seminary. It also offered statements that I still consider to be misleading, such as the pastors being "locally nominated". Understanding this statement requires that one previously understand the GCC concept of "local churches" and "church planting" in order to see how someone who first became a member in South Carolina or Iowa can become a pastor in Georgia or Colorado, and still be "locally nominated". I have materials from a GCA church and a GCC conference which support this. I am not sure of wikipedia procedure where fact is in dispute. I think we're supposed to represent both sides if there is a criticism, but I am making no value judgment on the practice of raising up a pastor in one location and giving him a church in another. It is simply not factual, at least with regard to the average layperson. Also, the word "deacon" has specific connotation with regard to other organizations which may not agree with how one would understand the roles and titles of deacons within GCC so it should be elaborated on or excluded. If the goal of the section was to put up a banner saying "now recruiting for pastors and deacons!" then the section did its job correctly but if the goal of the section is to provide insight into the leadership structures or governance models of GCC member churches then it kissed its sister. ClaudeReigns 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited your congregational polity (good link) statement. Actually, you might say I inverted. Here are some quotes from that article: "Although "congregational rule" may seem to suggest that pure democracy reigns in Congregational churches, this is usually not really the case. It is granted, with rare exception, that God has given the government of the Church into the hands of an ordained ministry." Also, the article divides christianity into three camps - congregationalist, presbyterian, and episcopal. Regardless of what you've experienced, GCC fits into the congregationalist category. Same applies to the deacon statement you made here - it doesn't really matter what roles deacons have.

I've made my thoughts clear on the advertising topic - i don't think it's adverstising at all. As I said earlier, the GCC affiliated churches are continually raising up pastors from within without formal seminary, I don't see why you have trouble accepting this. The GCC concept of church planting is not unique. I would suggest (in keeping with your coyness) that perhaps it is simply the facts that are enticing, because it is an accurate representation. Obviously I believe that an accurate and fair article about GCC is going to be enticing, because I love the org. Such is the case with facts in general - they rarely fail to elicit a response in people, even when they are simple.

As far as disputed facts, there is a written policy on that, forget the title. Again, remember the sourcing concept - there aren't any sources which dispute the facts in that particular section. Your personal experience/perceptions don't apply - Xanthius is right about that, tho I disagree with him in that I think discussion can be a useful impetus for finding the facts and honing them. (I also find his reliable sources commment rather hilarious in context given the willingness shown to take individuals' criticisms from 20 years ago and turn those into even structural facts rather than GCC statements about their structure - there's no way this approach can lead to a neutral article and it needs to be looked at, but I digress.) Gatorgalen 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We should come to some consensus about the statements on congregational polity, autonomy, and the like. But if a clear definition of GCC's interpretation of congregational polity, autonomy, and the like is allowed to stand, I think we can remove the advertisement flag, seeing as how the section about leadership education beliefs was moved to a more appropriate place under beliefs. Again, I'm only editing because I saw the flag and saw places where the political processes could be described fully and accurately. Ideally, Galen, I'm engaging your help and we're making this a team effort. Please refer to the talk page on congregational polity because what brief discussion has been made there makes it clear there are differences of opinion between denominations/movements on what constitutes it. I didn't like that you removed my reference to local leaders, which absolutely was the point of the source I cited, so I added the entire paragraph as a quote, so the source couldn't be taken out of context. Will you please consult with us about the wording I have included if you intend to change it? I am definitely open to subtle changes which might improve the NPOV and necessitate fewer edits in the future. Thanks ClaudeReigns 19:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion borders on original research (which has no place in this encylopedia, see guidelines). As a note, if you'll look at the history you'll note that I didn't remove your reference at all. I left it fully intact as a reference. However, this article is not a place for putting one's own ideas or interpretations. The source you put doesn't justify your statements. You are putting a ton of interpretation and personal preference in. This isn't the place for that. Again, I'd suggest you look at the quote I put above from that article (which, btw, if you want to see advertising, the second half or more of the Congregational Polity article is a prime example of advertising, there's nothing neutral or encylopedic about it - for example "The Church of Christ follows the first century church's practice...). Anyhow, the point is that you can't just put your opinion in there. I think everyone can agree that of the three camps, GCC fits in the congregational polity camp (again, see the one def. I quoted). We aren't in a position to correlate that quote and their view on cong. polity, or make it up. I can see where you personally might feel that way about that quote, but that's something for discussion in life, not in an encylopedia. The "requiring full deference to local leaders" phrase in particular is meaningless, also it implies (in a "weasel word" way) that this is somehow a different or even abnormal view. Also, for clarification, that quote is from 1984 right (I think I saw that somewhere)? So tense-wise, it would be much more appropriate to say something like "Regarding authority in the church, Dave Bovenmeyer once wrote in 1984 in The Cause, a short-lived GCI publication, that "quote". We need to stop interpreting people's statements - our job is information. Your wording isn't the issue, but rather actual accuracy with sourcing. I'll probably change it if you don't, but I'll give you the opportunity first. I had already read the talk page on the CP article before my edit. Gatorgalen 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What?? That's David Bovenmyer. It's his words. He's currently on the board for GCC. He was writing for an official Great Commission publication with the full oversight of Great Commission. There are other current board members with articles in that same journal. Unless there is another definition of autonomy offered as an addition, it's the best one we have. If it's not an abnormal view, what's to take issue? I am only attempting to make GCC policy clear for those who assume, as Congregationalist churches do, for example, a whole list of things that don't apply universally or at all to GCC. I'm not making a value judgment. Let's get something clear. There are lots of ways to interpret congregational polity, the autonomy of churches. This interpretation has always been the standard within GCC. Why on earth would you want to spend article space berating an official source of information from your own organization? Why would you put the wrong date on it? What's so wrong with deferring to your local leaders that you take offense? I don't get it, and I'm having a hard time working with you. I would please like someone else to come and take a look at this. ClaudeReigns 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I put the year in, as Gatorgalen suggested, added some info about who David Boyvenmyer is, fixed the citation type, and changed the wording. I think it's a valid source and point, but it is appropriate to note that the statement was made in 1985. If there are sources that contradict David's quote, perhaps they should be included as well, with other possible views of what people GCA's "autonomous" structure looks like. ClaudeReigns does make a good point that I agree with, "autonomous" could be taken to mean many things and should be expanded further as he has done. Xanthius 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for reformatting (3-12-07) This article has undergone a lot of changes, sentence by sentence. I think it reads somewhat disjointed now. Might I suggest the following for those who are the main editors: 1. Move the Today section to the top, followed by Beliefs, Values, History, Criticism, Memberships, etc. I think this would flow better. 2. Move paragraphs 4 and 5 of GCI section to Criticisms, since that's essentially what they are. 3. Eliminate the GCC IRS paragraph. What is the value of this information? Its not really newsworthy. 4. Eliminate the advertising banner. The section in dispute is no different than any other denominational page -- all Christian denomination articles have a section dealing with doctrine and practice. It is information ... it does not encourage or discourage a person with regard to GC affiliation. The preceding post was added by 12.163.50.38

Unsigned, GCC is not a denomination, and in fact rejects the label. It calls itself a Movement in its own literature and therefore is best classified as a New Religious Movement. NRM's require a different layout than established self-identified denominations, precisely because most people don't know where they originated. I am not sure which paragraphs are 4 and 5 in the GCI section but it seems like historical information provided through fact-checked sources; we should find out if documented confrontations between subjects and critics go in history or criticism, perhaps it's both. I don't really know anything about the IRS incident and couldn't say if I agree or disagree. I agree that if current edits to Today stand and there are no plans to revert, that the advertising label should now be removed. ClaudeReigns 00:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Claude's last two posts. Backwards of course. Regarding NRMs - if you'll check the list, you'll see that Assemblies of God, Calvary Chapel, Foursquare, and CMA are all considered both NRMs and denominations. Just a note. Also true of the Vineyard Movement, of which there are many comparisons to GCA. You're right that GCC doesn't like the denominational nametag, but just like Vineyard many outsiders consider it to be and there is little actual semantic difference. As far as what a movement is, a couple definitions I found were "a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal: the antislavery movement; the realistic movement in art." and "An organized effort by supporters of a common goal: a leader of the labor movement."

I say all that to say this. Movement is a very ambiguous term, more appropriate to an idea. You're right that GC does use the term frequently. However, I think the best factual definition, and most suitable for our purposes and for accuracy within the title and intro, is "GCAC is an association of churches". That's what the AC in GCAC stands for. Really, that's what we actually see in existence - churches. Somehow we need to differentiate - I think we need to start with definiing the article as about an association of churches, because we have to pick a topic - that is one thing plaguing us at present as editors. So let's start with something real, then trace the history of that association. and the present.

I will re-edit the Today section. It is not NPOV at present. What I objected to was not the quote but rather your original sentence before it. I was confused about the date, couldn't find it in your reference (I was in a hurry). We need to focus on what we're doing here - we're putting facts up. We don't need to interpret or extrapolate. That quote from Bovenmeyer seems to be about church leadership, with one sentence relating that to autonomy. For that reason, while I think it should stay, it would be wrong to put that forth as the best description of the GC view of autonomy and congregational polity since neither of those is the topic. Again, your statement isn't found in the quote. The quote itself is fine, and appropriate - i don't see any reason that it needs a qualifier - as the quote i put above from the cong. polity article says, leadership/authority is a common integral part of cong. polity, and as we all have said there is no "typical view" - if we're going to have cong. polity as a term in the GCA article, people need to go there and read it (also someone needs to put some serious work in on that article). I don't have any problem with deferring to leaders - i just want accuracy here. Also note that there is a difference between an article in an official publication by one man and an official stance of the org (which is listed in several places), especially given the independence and autonomy of the churches within GCA. Gatorgalen 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the advertising label. I'll work on sourcing the rest of the Today section. I'm actually happy that you edited out some of what I wrote, Galen. I think currently it is fairly concise, and quite NPOV, and is accurate according to current structures. I'd be pleased if you could bring some sources into play on current missional activity. There's every opportunity to provide facts about missional work especially within GCM without shifting back to a promotional feel. Just an idea. Again, I have removed the advertising label, and I think everyone is okay with that. ClaudeReigns 06:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Seminary

Two small notes on the seminary section. 1. It can be easily proved that there are several GCC pastors who have gone to seminary if you'd like to just look at some of them it's not hard. Just go to individual sites. 2. GCLI is not synonymous with GCLI conferences - GCLI regional conferences are only one component of GCLI. I can see how you'd be confused by that one local source you put - see GCC site for details, both in history and in services. Gatorgalen 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC) One other note, which is a question - does anyone have a quote regarding the "Heavenly Vision" statement? From my understanding it was always referred to as the "Great Commission Vision" and McCotter only used "Heavenly Vison" once, after which he was rebuked for doing so. If there is no source for this term I suggest it be deleted. Gatorgalen 22:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Heavenly Vision" collaborated with quotes from two sources now. Xanthius 03:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Misc

Xanthius, I think you need to reexamine both WP:RS and WP:Attribution. The way you cite sources (giving us 70 at the bottom) is not always necessary or desirable. That prayer letter is a widely published letter sent out officially by GCM - it is just as valid as The Cause (also not available on their website) or any other GC publication, and would have the same readership plus many others, and I have a copy. You have plenty of sources the rest of us can't access, and we've discussed this before. there's not going to be a double standard here - the source is perfectly valid. Also, please note that simply deleting things is not the appropriate way to deal with something you see as unsourced. Rather, you should bring it to the discussion page or add a source needed tag. Also, I continue to be amused by your choices of what to believe. With the history, you've just added a critic's book to a newspaper article probably not deeply researched that was reporting on a person criticisng the movement to "corroborate" the heavenly vision stuff. This brings up a whole other topic, namely that we need to begin having some discernment in what we use here. Because something is printed doesn't make it true - it only makes it true that someone printed it. If you want to put that in the criticism section, that's fine. The same applies to the info on name change versus formal organization (which i'll change later today). However, we need to realize that a lot of the sources here represent a minority viewpoint and should not be given precedience over the majority viewpoint. It is about the same level a the Flat Earth Society - there are an enormous amount of people comparatively who disagree with Pile and friends. This should be reflected in the article, per Wikipedia policy. Gatorgalen 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers are sources that are verifiable and fact-checked by editors. That is one of the criteria of a reliable source. That same cannot be said about the GC websites you frequently cite. They are not fact-checked, and are self-promotional in nature. We can use some of them because it is an article about GC, but obviously when we have newspapers and fact-checked sources that contradict the GC websites, those fact-checked sources trump the GC official websites.

I do not believe we can use an unpublished letter sent out in 1993. There is no "cite letter" template. If we are allowed to use unpublished letters, I could very easily add many more sources to the criticism section, however, we can not. But they are not fact-checked, nor verifiable or reliable. The newspaper articles I have sourced are all of these things, and can be easily obtained if one tries. Unless this letter was published as part of some sort of magazine, newspaper or journal, it cannot be used. If I am wrong about this, I invite another editor to correct me, but from my reading of the Wikipedia attribution and citation rules, this seems to be the case.

Last, the quote I added is directly from Ronald Enroth's book Churches That Abuse. Ronald Enroth is a highly respected researcher, and comparing his and other works critical of GC to the "Flat Earth Society" is rather humorous, but inaccurate. Larry Pile's book and research has been quoted by many newspapers, and he is a former cult counselor at Wellspring, a recovery center with commendations in at least one published cult recovery book. If you look at the sheer number of critical newspaper articles on the movement (cited in the criticism section, dozens listed so far) you'll see that the critics of GC are far from extremist in their views. A movement of churches does not get called a cult by three cult research organizations, and get criticized in so many newspapers, without there being some sort of valid criticism about the group. Your are free to believe otherwise, but your belief seems to be based upon your own experience/beliefs, rather than any sort of research. I am going to very kindly suggest you see the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest article, in light of the closeness you have to the movement as stated in your talk page, and reconsider whether you should be editing this page in the first place. Xanthius 18:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the letter - let me ask you this. Is it possible that GCM did not say those things? The obvious answer is no. It is a verifiable document put out by GCM. It and The Cause are the exact same. You can consider it a one-page magazine if you like, but either way it is a published work of GCM. The opinion is clearly GCM's, and should be represented as such. Again, this is not a personal letter, but a published letter sent across the world officially by the organization, just like every other publication they put out.

I think you need to step back for a miunte and really look at your sources. What do you really have here? Primarily, you have articles resulting from disgruntled individuals who somehow get linked with the press. Those articles are based on that source. I don't know if you truly naively believe that newspapers are good sources of accurate historical research, but I feel sorry for you if you do. They are good sources for an article like this in that we can say "such and such paper reported this", however they are not in any way infallible as you would have us believe. Realistically, if you're honest, they probably only talked to critics at the time. If GCAC and the highly reputable ECFA both put GCAC's founding as that of GCI, and GCAC says that it was formally organized and that there was a real change, something no one's contradicted yet (the newspaper article's purpose was not history, they don't seem to have been trying to delineate between the two), then we have no reason to call them liars. If you feel there is reason, put in the criticism section. It's that simple.

Percentage-wise, I'm afraid the Flat Earth Society analogy stands. It may be a slight exaggeration, but look at the facts. Enroth no longer has any issue with GCC (I know this because I've talked with him). But as for verifiable facts, look at all the current endorsements, the other ministries and ministry leaders who have stood with and supported GCC and GCM, the ECFA and IFMA and EFMA that have all welcomed them in, each of which represents a huge portion of American Christianity. No cult research group currently lists GCC. In the past 15 years, who do we have that has criticized GCC? From what I can see, it looks like one man (Larry Pile), one website (supposedly ran by one or two people), and a blog of maybe 30 frustrated people. Currently, the view of GCC negatively is a tiny-minority view. Sorry, but it's true.

Yet it seems like you're willing to take anything ever said in the past and regard it as absolute truth even now. The only way I can understand that is that you have a serious hatred and disrespect for GCC. I would kindly ask you to also examine the Conflict of Interest policy. Gatorgalen 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't question if it exists. I question if it was published or not. According to Wikipedia:Attribution you may not use original research, which is described as material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. with a few minor exceptions. The difference between a letter somebody may have sent in 1993 to an unknown number of people and an article in The Cause is that The Cause was a nationally published (albeit GC published) newspaper with a claimed circulation of over a million. Now, I can think of one way you can use that letter: if it was referenced and available on the GC website. You could then cite their website as a source, however you cannot cite the unpublished letter itself.

As for your assertions regarding Enroth, and the percentage of people you believe consider GC problematic: irrelevant to this conversation. We are supposed to be here to provide sources for an encyclopedic article. Don't defend GC to me, find a newspaper article or other reliable source about a cult watch organization that has decided to take GC off its list, and cite it here. That is the nature of how we are supposed to be operating. Xanthius 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but perhaps you missed the Primary Sources section under Reliable Sources. This is an official document, a public response put out by GCM. It is not "a letter somebody may have sent". This is an official, GCM letter which would have been sent to every member and supporter of GCM. It is very much like a "White House summary of a press conference". In fact, very similar, as it is in effect a press release. It is in no way original research; I did not call GCC and say "what did you think of this". The templates aren't meant to include everything. We have no other record of this, and it is obviously very pertinent to the subject, so as much as we may prefer secondary sources, this will have to do.

I wasn't defending GC to you. I'm trying to point out the clear fact that, and this is an integral part of the NPOV policy, the view of GCC as aberrant is a tiny-minority view numerically, possibly a significant minority view due to having one famous adherent, but by no means should be considered or presented as the majority view. The NPOV policy tells us to do this. With the cult orgs, there is no need to find a news release - their databases should be online for all to see unless I'm mistaken.

Also, I'd ask that you look at the wikipedia guidelines which tell us to abide by the spirit, and not the letter of the law, and the spirit is laid out quite clear, tho in this case the letter is abided by as well. When in doubt we are told to go with the spirit of the law. Gatorgalen 23:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We should have arbitors decide which sources are appropriate for Wikipedia. I am new and not qualified. This is quickly degenerating into an edit war and that is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. My concerns about the letter are only that since it was distributed within Great Commission and with its supporters (as opposed to more public distribution like The Cause or other periodicals) that I. Critics may not have had a chance to respond II. Actual distribution within Great Commission is seems hard to prove. I'm not opposed at all that Great Commission answer its critics or that those responses may be posted here. It's expected and such information would be encyclopedic. But it should obviously be a sourceable response. I'll leave that question for other more experience Wikipedia editors to discuss. ClaudeReigns 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't actually think we need arbitors in this case, because honestly i think it's a pretty simple case. Who was the audience of The Cause? I am certain Larry Pile and any Paul Martin have seen this letter. I wonder if they did respond. I don't necessarily see why they would - they would just be repeating themselves and it'd turn into (they did this. we did not. they did this....) Kinda like third grade.

As for it being sourceable, we know who wrote it, that it's a primary source, when they wrote it, the title, why they wrote it, and the exact quotes. What more anyone could ask for is beyond me. Another thing I wanted to say earlier was that this is from the days prior to internet - they couldn't just send an email or post a response on their website. It seems to me that this is exactly the same info as a website, if not more reliable because of the fact that it has an exact date. BTW Claude, I appreciate your recent edits, as well as being patient on this topic and in general. I think your section on pastors was great (there's one detail I'm not sure about, namely board members being known as elders - from my understanding boards typically consist of elders and deacons, but being on the board doesn't make one an elder. I'm not sure, looking into it, it'd help me if you can point me to exactly where you got that detail). We may have gotten off to a rocky start, but I think we're going to end up working well together. All's well that ends well. Gatorgalen 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys have me interested in this letter now. Is there a snapshot of it somewhere? Dates, postmarks... hard to define the actual circulation of the letter but it is interesting to me. I've re-read the paper on elders... deacons are board members ideally only when there are not enough elders to fill enough board positions, and informed that they are not responsible for giving an account for the lives of people within the church (heb 13:17 is cited). I'll re-read our article in case it's not clear that not every board member is always an elder. ClaudeReigns 09:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a physical copy if you'd like me to copy it and mail it, or attempt to scan it (not in touch with my scanning side, but I have one). It has the month and year clearly marked. I quoted the part you would find interesting, the rest is fairly mundane. BTW, on a separate note, I know there is a common misconceptoin out there that every thing needs to have a reference citation - if everyone'll check the WP:Attribution page you'll see that that is not the case, nor is it even always desirable. Back to Claude - is there a reason you're linking everything, even if it doesn't have an article? Just curious. Gatorgalen 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this earlier, but am not sure everyone read it - please read the WP:Attribution policy. Of special note is this "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Some of the edits which are information and not going to be challenged, for example my last one, are not worth arguing about. If you want to put it somewhere else, feel free if you think it fits somewhere else. And again, if you honestly challenge any edit, especially in this environment, just tag it - I've done so with some things which have yet to be added, but I'm giving a little time and the benefit of the doubt before I delete them. I ask the same of everyone else. Gatorgalen 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The unsourced information you added at worst contradicts, and at best is unsupported, by the current sources. So it was removed per Attribution policy. If you do have a source which supports your addition, see my talk page and I can help you cite it. Xanthius 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Listcruft?

Rather than simply throw on a template for listcruft and other cleanup issues. or deleting sections or articles wildly (something I am not prone to do), I am back to the discussion page asking for attribution for all items within the category "Memberships, partners, endorsements and references". As per wikipedia guidelines, there are qualifications as to which are of sufficient note, and of course prose content always supercedes lists and should be placed first. I've temporarily wikilinked all persons and organization within this list section to help establish some criteria of notability, and even created an article on one to establish his notability. However, I don't really have the time to create articles for all 69 red wikilinks there before I cleanup. Which articles should I expect to survive the notability test? The Christian Meetings and Conventions Association, while possibly deserving mention in the phrase "and other interdenominational associations" seems to lack notability. Another listcruft issue is always spam, so while Relevant Magazine is notable, a list of Relevant Magazine articles by GCM members is questionably notable, especially when considering the business relationship between Relevant Group and GCM established in their listing. And why not listed as a media partner rather than simply partner? Only half the endorsers in the endorsement section are currently wiki-notable and their quotes are HUGE. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Only four of the figures on the Council of Reference are notable and none have an official say in GCC affairs. "GCC maintains a Council of Reference to affirm support for ministries. Members include Dr. Howard Hendricks, Dr. Robert E. Logan, Dr. John C. Maxwell, and influential church planter and author Dr. Rick Warren." Nuff said. Notable members and leaders section uses a criteria against wikipedia guideline of notability. Just because someone has a website does not make it worthy of a list in the middle of an article. These go in "External Websites" at the end of an article. Finally the Relevant Magazine articles aren't supporting statements about GCC. "Relevant Magazine sometimes accepts articles written by GCM members." Nuff said. Let's get this done, or at least make proposals about what work there is to be done, by the end of the week. In all:

• Support notability of each list
• Support notability of each list item
• Correct groupings where applicable
• Propose articles to be written
• Abridge endorsements to encyclopedic proportions
• Convert lists to prose whenever possible

At the end of the week I will examine the section again and may discuss:

• Reverting all red wikilinks to non-wikilinks as per the manual of style
• Deleting all unsupported statements as per wikipedia attribution policy
• Abridging all lists of notability according to notability guidelines
• Helping with the creation of articles where notability is supported
• Finishing prose conversion process if incomplete and obviously necessary or still requested
• Attempting to find a home for deleted material (such as a userpage or other article)
• And relegating all non-prose lists to the end of the article as per Manual of Style

Not to be rude, but did you actually read the info on the Listcruft and the two other list related WP articles? this is totally not in line with them. Gatorgalen 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Any particular disagreement? I can't begin to know what you mean by that. Think I've put forward my ideas pretty plainly using the wording of the actual WP guidelines and policies ClaudeReigns 18:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Would it be acceptable to move the quotes from the "Endorsements and commendation" section to wikiquote and link them?
• Also, am I misunderstanding something, or could the "Beliefs and Values" section be re-worded (shortened?) to not be a direct copy+paste and be acceptable?
• I'm looking around Wikipedia at other denominations and church organizations and it's normal to have the beliefs and theology section. Is it just the format that is the problem?
• So if all the links were fixed in the "Membership..." section, would most of the listcruft issue be mostly solved?

Sorry about all the "newbie" questions, I'm just trying to get an idea of exactly what's going on here... Nswinton 19:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing those up, Nswinton. 1.I'm not sure of the qualifications for a wikiquote inclusion, but any external site for the quotes should be sufficient. By using the quotefarm tag, I wasn't saying that the quotes aren't relevant to be referenced, just that an encyclopedia article should be more prosaic in style. 2&3.I didn't address the beliefs and theology specifically... I recognize that as normal. I don't think many people have a problem with the general beliefs of GCAC. They should definitely be included. There are also relevant wikipedia articles about individual statements of belief, so they could be shortened and linked just as a matter of style. In general it ought to become more prosaic and remain within the body of the article, not appended to the end like any list. 4.My membership section concerns are more about notability than just the wikilinks. It seems like some of those organizations are significant enough to be referenced in other articles, and then others aren't. More about that later--I should do a thorough search for examples of where and how they are included elsewhere so you can see exactly what I mean. The main problem with listcruft is with style. The article reads: definition, history, today, list, list, list, list, list, criticism. Needs to have those lists either reworded to be more prosaic, or where lists aren't able to be written in paragraph form consistent with an encyclopedia article, they should be appended to the end of the article rather than creating a long break before the rest of the encyclopedic prose content continues. Welcome aboard. ClaudeReigns 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, ClaudeReigns. I don't know how "on board" I am, since most days I have alot of work to do (kinda taking today as a breather, and wandered over here to see what's happening). Just dipping my toes in to see what's going on. For kicks and giggles, I listed most of the broken links on the current incarnation of the article on my userpage. Establishing notability across the board would take someone like myself several months probably (if even possible... some refrences are not extremely notable). It seems like alot of the "list" sections could have brief statements summarizing the list and a link to an external site - and that would dramatically improve things. Is that common practice? Nswinton 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's break it down. First, the WP:Listcruft is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Plus, it focuses on standalone lists - things like List of Groups Called Cults would be an example of a standalone list, ie it is its own article. Within articles, lists are highly appropriate according to the Listcruft essay. Wikipedia:List Guideline is a guideline, and supports what we've done here by consensus for information purposes. As for Wikipedia:Notability, the guideline makes it quite clear that "These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. That is, not all material included in an article must, in itself, meet these criteria". For some reason you are trying to apply them to the content within, which is a major mistake. List items do not need to be notable, definitely do not need to have their own article. Your desire to move to prose isn't supported by any guideline or policy on lists that I can find. The above reasons are why I questioned whether you've read the articles you pointed to. Also, keep in mind that our goal is to present information, and that the most important offical Wikipedia policy is WP:Ignore all rules, which states "if the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Gatorgalen 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, this article has still received no quality rating, in contrast to my other articles, and from where I'm sitting looks a little like a train wreck. Speculation: other editors see the entrenchment here and are afraid to touch this article with a ten foot pole. I was observing all the essays, guidelines, and policies I could find in order to try and correct the matter of problems making this article encyclopedic, all the while trying to engage cooperation in order to make this a pleasant project to work on. One of the articles I was observing which helped me form my cleanup notions is an official policy that I figured didn't require explanation, "What wikipedia isn't," and that is definitely applicable to everything I'm talking about.

• WP:NOT#SOAP (e.g.: paragraph long endorsement statements from George Grange et. al.?, inclusion of mission statement of EFCA?)
• WP:NOT#LINK (e.g.: links to Relevant [ironic] Magazine articles not about GCA?, 16 external links to GCC partners, all serviceable by one link to the GCC partners page?)
• WP:NOT#DIR with respect to "resource for conducting business" (e.g.: endorsement by the Christian Meetings and Conventions Association?, commentary on Relevant Media Group?)

and especially

• WP:NOT#IINFO (e.g.: list of articles in Relevant Magazine written by people in GCM but which have absolutely nothing to do with GCC itself?, and the full list including brief resumes of all 17 members of the GCC council of reference, none of whom actually have a say in how GCC is run?).

It's fine that you included supportive material from the official website, especially these things which can be verified and there should definitely be a way for that information to be represented and accessed. But there is a rhetorical difference between a self-promotional website and an encyclopedia article and that is what's to be corrected now. This was the problem when Xanthius noted that you simply cut and pasted material from the official website. It didn't show the editorial discrimination which we now must exercise. When I said "Listcruft?" with a question mark, that's me going "This article needs definite cleanup--is this the best way to describe it?" I'm not going to argue further about it here, especially since it seems we can no longer even look to the rules to help you and I find common ground. I trust that the rest of the editors are willing to work with my proposal and feel welcome to propose both amendments to my suggestions and their own suggestions for general improvement beyond next week? ClaudeReigns 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns, I generally agree with your sentiments on WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:NOT#IINFO. I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean about WP:NOT#DIR, though. Do you mean the listing of those groups looks like an advertisement? I read that section of what Wikipedia is not, and it looked like it was discussing doing business, but those refrences you mentioned were memberships, not temporary things, and seem note-worthy to me. Could you help me understand where you're going with that thought, and maybe propose a solution. I'm trying to work up a proposal for the future of the article right now... Nswinton 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe I'm biased because I did temp work for an agency that threw conventions and the particular job was advertisement for a convention for people who threw conventions. An endorsement from "Banquets R Us" (gratutitous link included) is the perception I'm bringing with regard to CMCA. Forgive me, I'm still amped today from being stuck between Scientologists and their critics on the Tilman Hausherr article. :D Anyway it's easily solved by condensing and external linking to the GCC membership page. The WP:NOT#DIR concerning Relevant Media Group is about the 'they made our website' type of comment which seems like a pretty blatant return plug, a "they can do your website too, just click the link" kind of thing. Again, highly appropriate where it originated, but not encyclopedic--much more about RMG than GCC. ClaudeReigns 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

McCotter?

Anyone willing to kick off a Jim McCotter article? I thought about starting the page (I'm sure a ton would be added/brawled over in just a few days), but I don't have any original research, so it'd be very amateur-ish for me to do it. Does anyone that reads this have enough info to get one started? Nswinton 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's in the works for mid-late April. ClaudeReigns 18:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads-up. Nswinton 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)