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.