Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 1

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

message: Notable criticisms that are verifiable with reliable sources are entirely appropriate and in fact required to maintain a nuetral point of view.  The criticisms section  should be included in the article and expanded to say describe the nature of the criticisms.  If any of the cited sources are available online then it would be helpful to provide the URL as part of the citation. 
If the GCA has directly responded to those criticisms, then any response that is verifable with a reliable source should be included in the article.  Presentation of similar material is often accomplished using a Criticisms section, followed by a separate Response to Criticisms section. 
Chondrite 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Chondrite (I guess I'm a 4th opinion). Presenting notable examples of criticism is a part of Wikipedia neutrality, not a violation of it. KarlBunker 19:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

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

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

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

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

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

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