Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

{{atn}

Edits by Mr. Pharoah Man

2 things. 1) Wholesale removal of content doesn't fit into my idea of what a good wiki article looks like, and I think we can all find concensus on this. If you want to make an edit like you did, bring it up here, because I don't think your changes are all that non-controversial. 2) Yes, we are concerned with NPOV and this article, but we are also concerned with having a good article. If you are going to make future edits, read up a bit on your editing style and make sure your edits contribute to a presentable article. As they stood, your edits were not presentable and would not get this article moved up in the wiki world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfpantst (talk • contribs) 17:59, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

  Sorry I forgot to sign Mfpantst 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On August 16 I listed a number of edits I would like to see made. It's now Aug. 21 and none of those items have been responded to. So, I did bring up ideas here first. My changes that you reverted leave out no relevent info, just shortens it. Wanted to use bullets but didn't know how.Mr. Pharoah Man 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I see that now. Lets get some comments going on this change first, and also if any of us all who knows a little bit about formatting could help out once we get concensus, lets do so. This page won't go far it we can't discuss it. It'll become another edit war. I personally don't value shortening the article as I don't see it to be overly long. Mfpantst 21:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Hey, anyone know some sysops that might be able to come in here and semi-protect the article from all the IP edits? I checked out Wikipedia:Protection policy, and it looks like Semi-Protection would be the best solution for the problem. IP 68.112.203.220 keeps deleting whole sections on the article itself, but has never shown up here on the talk page. Anyone know how to go about getting something like that done? Nswinton\^talk 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it got done for us. I believe that IP is the only vandal IP we really have for this page, and he has been blocked for 36 hours now, and if he does it again, he'll be blocked for longer. Mfpantst 12:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good :) Nswinton\^talk 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User has requested to be unblocked. He was ignorant of wiki policies and also thinks that all the sections he blanked out are lies. Perhaps someone from the other side of the aisle could try and talk to him. I know some of this page is under contention, but we also understand that the content is under contention for POV reasons, not for their being lies as this user has attributed them to. Outside voices (like my own) don't usually help, so if someone else could reason with him further that would be good. I put a short explanation on his talk page in response and for the admin's consideration, but if they guy has reasonable ideas to contribute I don't want him wholly kept from helping out. Thanks guys. Mfpantst 18:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Name

So this article is called Great Commission Association, but the organization is really Great Commission Churches now. Perhaps we should change the name of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfpantst (talk • contribs) 18:49, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I think the article was named Great Commission Association, because that was considered an umbrella name for all of the GC organizations. This article is supposed to be the overview of the whole movement. I think Great Commission Movement might be a better title, myself. That would be inclusive of everything that has come out of the pre-blitz era of the late 60's/early 70's. What do you think? Nswinton\^talk 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds agreeable. I'm just observing here, it seems GC changes names with relative frequency. (Comparitively speaking to other denominations given GC's current timetable) However, for the most part Great Commission seems to be part of the name so Great Commission Movement would be good. I mainly brought it up because That one reference to the EFCA lists GCA as having changed names from GCA to GCC. But GC movement sounds good to me. Mfpantst 18:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The other reason I bring this up is as an observation. As I don't necessarily believe in coincidences, and this article is an element of controversy because there seems to be a revival (although minor) in ctiritism/controversy with the GC movement lately and at the same time they have changed their name, I would say officially if the EFCA lists them as having changed their name. Say, for example you google GCA vs GCC, you might get a different picture about the churches based on what comes up. Though this is merely kibitzing and observation and not accusation. Mfpantst 19:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thus, the wonder of wikipedia. Great Commission Movement, as an article, can potentially cover all the major, noteworthy aspects of the movement as a single document. Googling either will probably yield this article as a primary hit. Nswinton\^talk 20:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the wonder. On another note, would you consider Gc a denomination or movement. Each have different connotations and meanings. Although this level of semantics might not be important to a wiki. Mfpantst 20:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good question! Lets look at some definitions (from [1]):

1. Movement: a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal.
2. Denomination: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith.
3. Organization: a group of persons organized for some end or work; association.

With those definitions, it could be called a "Denominational Movement Organization" :) It's hard, without picking and choosing the definition that fits with your personal perception, to really pick one and say that it's best. I know that there has been hesitation from within to have it be called a "denomination", but I think that the hesitation comes mostly from modern stereotypes put on other denominations, rather than a dislike of being a "group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith". In my opinion (which carries little weight on wikipedia), they could be any of the three. I would lean toward calling them a Movement at this point, because that title, I think, best fits the people and culture within the group over the years. Nswinton\^talk 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As for article name, "Great Commission Association" would be good for the broadest article. If there were sub articles in the future, they might be "Great Commission Churches," "Great Commission International," and "Great Commission Ministries." Concerning the labeling question, I agree completely with Nate about the denomination tag. That word has a negative connotation among people who view their church as being largely autonomous. People outside GC probably would look at GC as a denomination, while most people inside GC would not prefer that term. If you're looking for an accurate label, it might be a "sect." "Movement" is a temporary term that GC has probably moved beyond. Just my 2 cents.Mr. Pharoah Man 13:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paroah Man on the movement naming. I feel like a movement would be cross-denomination (ie within other churches) for the most part, and although GC is non-denom its not cross. I might lean towards denom or org, but I feel as Paroah seems also to feel we should go with the name. However, the name is not "Great Commsision Association" anymore. It is "Great Commission Churches" as evidenced by the ECFA, who keeps tracks financial records of church organizations Mfpantst 14:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As a further note, I would support denom or organization, however if we were to go with org, I would suggest going to the proper legal name (GCC) because GC org sounds like we're giving it the name. I wouldn't go with movement because GC is no longer a group of organizations, it is an organization unto itself. Mfpantst 14:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, it's interesting if you look at the current structure a bit deeper. Great Commission Churches is big, but I think it's quite a misnomer to consider it the organization, or the movement as an "organization unto itself". GCC, GC Latin America, GC Europe, GC Asia, and GCM Campus are all associations of churches where none can control or make decisions for any of the others. GCM itself serves all those five with missionaries and such. On another note, the denomination tag fails for somewhat the same reason; there is no central authority, no top-down hierarchy of decision making. To me that's the difference between an association and a denomination.

So I would be fine with association, but prefer "movement' on the count of accuracy, plus the fact that GC itself uses it. Given the lack of standardization in terms and the lack of a compelling reason to contradict their terminology, I think it's important just to note that the history on gcc's website starts out "The Great Commission church movement began..." So that's my two cents. Gatorgalen 14:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For one, I don't think movement is accurate. Because GC calls itself a movement doesn't make it accurate. If you go check out GC's records with the ECFA, GCA is a subsidiary of GCC. GCM is a supporting organization, actually registered seperately, but I think the detailed history on GCC's website sets up GCM as a subsidiary, even if not financially registered as such. At the least, where our page says "GCAC generally refers to itself as Great Commission Churches (GCC) in public communications," I would change this to GCAC doing business as GCC or something because GCC is now the registered name. Check out my references if you don't believe. As for the title, I don't think self-referencing as a movement makes them a movement. Show me signifigant evidence of traditional manline denoms working with GC for GC specific purposes or show me GC groups in other denom's churches and I would go with that. But as it stands, I think of GC as a large organization (non-denominational) rather than a movement. Mfpantst 15:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I was saying, it very much depends on how you define those three words (denom, org, and mov). Which is my reason for saying let them pick. It doesn't really matter much. GC as a large organization is simply incorrect though, when you look at the actual structure. For people who aren't familiar with the terms, and even for those who are, it can be confusing. GCAC and GCC are the same, you are correct about that, the american branch of the movement. ECFA just registers that change in name. GCA (not GCAC) is another term used for the "right hand of fellowship" to other countries. What's important though is that there are four equal organizations (GCAC/GCC, GCLA, GCE, and GCM Campus) which both do not control each other and are not under the authority of anyone else. Imagine those four side-by-side, with GCM underneath serving those four (GCM Campus is certain US campus churches under a certain mentorship structure different from that of GCC and their campus churches, it is different from GCM). But there is nothing above them, no head or single organization. It's not a typical structure by any means. Gatorgalen 17:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would go ahead and say sure, sounds good to me. But there is in principle a central organization as the 4 groups you have pointed out all work towards the same end. By definition that would require cross-coordination and that cc would be facilited by a deciding organization. when the heads of each group get together to talk strategy, thats something. I would think we ought to use organization because we're really talking about the evolution from McCotter to everything we have today. Sure GCM and la and e are seperate but they are essentially spin-offs, generated from within the ranks of the GCA organization. Since this article focuses on GCA and GCM, which until 2006 was not its own organization, I would think GCC or GC organization would work because that's essentially what we are wikiing Mfpantst 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

GCM has been a separate organization since 1989... If we're talking about everything from McCotter, it definitely wasn't an organization for quite a while when he was a leader. The fact that they coordinate is what makes them a movement and not an organization - there is no one above them telling them what to do. Each makes their own decisions. Imho, organization is the one that least makes sense... both movement and association make sense, but organization is a more defined term. Go to www.gcachurches.org and look at the bottom... there is the GCGF which is the term for when those leaders come together as you speak of, but it's barely an entity. And there again, it refers to the movement. As I said previously, I think we need really good reasons to define it as something that it doesn't itself, and no one has given even one compelling one yet. Somewhat arrogant on our part. Gatorgalen 19:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, since this article is about GCA, and GCA has changed its name to GCC, see references again, lets rename the article to GCC. That's really what this article is about anyways, not what the GCAC subsidiary of GCC is.Mfpantst 19:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently titled GCA, but it is really about all the Great Commission "X"'s, at least at present. GCC does not represent all those - it does not encompass GCM, GCLA, or GCE. So this brings up back to the idea proposed and rejected a while ago of splitting the article and having separate ones. I'm neutral on that idea. I presently like the term "Great Commission church movement", capitalized exactly that way, as a title. GCAC is GCC, not a subsidiary of GCC, but GCA (without the C) is the right hand of fellowship to to GCLA and GCE and so on. Yeah, it's confusing. Gatorgalen 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gatorgalen about "Great Commission church movement". That would at least best describe what the article is now. If we want to make some philosophical changes to the article and/or split it all up, I think GCC, GCLA, GCM, and GCE all ought to be their own articles. Until this article starts to bulge with necessary information, though, I think it should be named for what it is - the summary of the whole church movement from inception to present, with all of it's iterations. Nswinton\^talk 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Commission church movement sounds good to me. I support Mfpantst 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know how to do that? I knew at one time, but I've forgotten. Nswinton\^talk 23:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked around, and I think its under WP:MV. We have to move the page and then put a redirect in for this page. I would suggest we move the article, and if possible talk page to the new one and then redirect the GCA over to GCcm. Mfpantst 13:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Commission Church movement or Great Commission church movement? (Capital vs small C?) In other words, is Church a proper noun in this case? In any event, because the target article does not exist, anyone who has been a registered user for 4+ days can make the move. There is a move tab at the top of the page and as long as you leave "move associated talk page" checked, the talk page will be moved too without any additional work required. --B 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So apparently moving a page is super-easy. It's done :) Nswinton\^talk 14:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed Good Article nomination

Unfortunately, due to the POV banner, this article is a quick fail for Good article status. Once the dispute has been resolved and the article is stable, consider checking it against the Good article criteria and renominating if possible. Good luck with the article development. Skomorokh ^incite 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets get a vote to remove the tag, like above. Although we're still working on some parts, we have started a formal discussion and have made some headway with the article. If the majority feels like the npov tag should remain, let it remain and we'll go for GA status when we feel the article is more npov. If not, lets take if off and re-apply for GA now.Mfpantst 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My vote is Weak Support as I think that this article is somewhat acceptable now but could still be written in a fairer (both ways) light. I feel that the MPC needs to be moved from background to criticism sections, the beliefs and values section should be a summary or full listing, not what it is now, and that while all the specific items in the criticisms sections should remain, they should be summarized.(item, result, quotes) Mfpantst 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As a former outsider (Wikipedia nomad kind of guy) called to have an opinion on this article, I deem the NPOV vaguely motivated by the previous discussion in this talk page. (so I Oppose) - The trouble with the article, is not that it criticizes Great Commission Association – if the society criticizes the movement, then this is an objective fact – but that it contains too little about the church faith in order to motivate such a degree of criticism. So my proposal is to add more facts about the movement faiths, while keeping the criticism. When the objective image stands to support the criticism (with possible countercriticisms, if that would be found elsewhere), then the image holds logically, and the POV-mark can safely be removed. It might be possible to request a lock from non-registered edits, and that might serve all editors in this talk page. I believe I'm going to contribute to this article by extending the Statement of Faith and Core Values, which is one of the more obvious missing facts. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A vote is not sufficient - the criteria for removing a dispute tag is that either the dispute is resolved or lapsed. So long as at least one party, in good faith, disputes the POV, the tag stays. Removal of the tag can take place by a non-disputing party if the disputing party is Missing In Action for a reasonable amount of time. Thus, unanimity rather than majority is necessary for dispute resolution. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right actually, although I had a hard time finding the Wikipedia:Consensus where the process is described. So: I oppose for another reason: consensus must be reached on unanimosity or party vacancy. Said: Rursus ☻ 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyranny of the hecklers doesn't govern Wikipedia. We don't give leave to people, for example, who hold extreme minority viewpoints to insist that their viewpoint be treated on an even basis with accepted views and that anything else isn't neutral. Majority doesn't matter that much either - it's not a vote - but consensus does matter. --B 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well when you put it that way... You guys are definately right. Didn't really think that one through. And thanks Rursus for coming to give some outside attention to this article. Mfpantst 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deemed from the previous debate in this page, there will be no problems – all participants are consensus minded and collaborative for the most part. When called to here, I was a little concerned to be forced to partake in some conflict, but the discussion seems to be about how to reach good quality status. This is nice. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)