Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Great Commission church movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Found the original diff. [1] ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Logo vert-alt.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Discuss the reasons for the tag. Dreadstar † 05:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a last ditch effort to create consensus on the months-long POV dispute. I can't think of anything else I would really change, and I've run out of other specific suggestions. Do you have any alternative suggestions? ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are fine, so "last ditch" doesn't cover it. Please detail the specifics of the NPOV dispute. Dreadstar † 06:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The tag was put on by Mfpanst, but he was noting the dispute rather than suggesting a specific solution. After a long time had passed with few edits, I had proposed to remove it, but Gatorgalen opposes. According to Gatorgalen, the article is being used "as a tool". I had RfC'd, but only one editor came by and said he didn't think there were any POV issues. Gatorgalen didn't think one opinion held much importance. The most specific attempt made recently was when Gatorgalen attempted to summarize a quote evaluating Great Commission's followup to their Weakness Statement. Xanthius reverted it, and then I attempted a compromise by extending a quote from a Great Commission source so as to match weight. I think that's where it all stands. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If diffs could be provided for the disputed content, that would be helpful. Dreadstar † 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The summary [2]
• The revert [3]
• Revert to summary [4]
• 2nd reversion [5]
• my attempt to compromise [6][7][8][9][10]

Anyone feel free to modify this, still working for a version that works best. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So, the basic problem is whether to use a quote or summarize the same quote? Dreadstar † 03:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that at all. I think the basic problem is a deeper question of how favorably the sides of this controversial topic are portrayed and how much weight they are given. IMO, the quote battle is just an extension of that underlying tension. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But the effect of that deeper question is edit warring over those specific diffs? Or are there other issues? Dreadstar † 06:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I can point to no other issues with content. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, that makes it a bit easier. Can we list the different versions here so we can compare and discuss the merits of each? Dreadstar † 07:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time as I'm currently traveling, but as I have repeatedly stated to you before, the edit of the quote had nothing to do with the main problems of the article. It is not an extension of the "underlying tension". The quote as it is is just really really bad form and really really poor editing. It's not a matter of weight at all. It's a matter of making an actual encylopedia article. I really wish you would cease attributing motivations to me that are not there, and especially that you would stop in essence calling me a liar by not believing what I say about my own motivations - which, as you should not need telling, is a fundamental wikipedia policy. The NPOV dispute and my edit of the quote ARE NOT RELATED. My edit should have been accepted or built upon, I did not expect any controversy as this is a pretty simple issue - as it stands it is not acceptable for a good article. Gatorgalen (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not wish to call you a liar. How exactly does quoting the source make the article less encyclopedic? Forgive me, but this seems both uncivil and quite enigmatic. I believe I have taken every effort now to ensure your side was represented, though I have trouble interpreting your commentary in the absence of more specific and sustained conversation. My assumption that you were editing in hopes of balancing the POV of the article was an assumption of good faith. If there is no longer an editor with further ideas to balance the POV of this article then it should follow that the dispute is resolved. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing I noticed is that I still have that OR tag hanging in the current version. Does that observation about the document constitute original research if unnoted in another source? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Dreadstar † 09:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Modified. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

According to GCC, "During the late 1980s and early 1990s a concerted effort was made to reach out to people who felt that they had been hurt by GCI and its churches. At the initial urging of Tom Short, the GCI leaders and pastors published a paper as part of a plan to follow the Biblical standard of humility and reconciliation in relationships. This effort towards reconciliation, formally called Project CARE, was led by Dave Bovenmyer and was instrumental in building unity with Christians within and outside of Great Commission."^[1]

In 1991, GCAC released a public statement acknowledging church error and weakness.^[2][3]

In the statement, GCC clarified its position on many issues, and admitted responsibility for mistakes grouped into two categories; problems resulting from a "prideful attitude", and problems as "a result of a misapplication or misin­terpreta­tion of Scripture." Issues discussed in the statement include:

• Failing to distin­guish between a command, and principle, and preference.
• Authoritarian and insensitive leadership.
• An "elitist attitude" towards other Christian organizations.
• Excessive and unbiblical church discipline.
• Improper response to criticism.
• Lack of emphasis on formal education.
• A belief that every man should become an elder.
• Treating dating as a sin.

The statement also listed steps taken, or to be taken, to correct these issues. No specific people or incidents were named in the statement, other than Secretary David Bovenmyer, whose signature was printed at the end of it. Their statement in its entirety is available here.

As of 1994, many former members felt the Weakness Statement was not enough or that it left-out other concerns, according to Ronald Enroth's book Recovering From Churches that Abuse:

Dr. Paul Martin, director of Wellspring and a former member of Great Commission International (as the group was formerly called), concurs with the opinions of many other former members:

Some encouraging reforms have occurred in recent years after the founder, Jim McCotter, left the movement in the late 1980s. However, the current leadership has not yet revoked the excommunication of its earlier critics. The admissions of error so far have been mainly confined to a position paper, the circulation of which has been questioned by many ex-members. Furthermore, Great Commission leaders have not yet contacted a number of former members who feel wronged and who have personally sought reconciliation. There has been some positive movement in that direction, but most ex-members that I have talked to are not fully satisfied with the reforms or apologies and feel that the issues of deep personal hurt and offense have not been adequately addressed.

According to GCC, "During the late 1980s and early 1990s a concerted effort was made to reach out to people who felt that they had been hurt by GCI and its churches. At the initial urging of Tom Short, the GCI leaders and pastors published a paper as part of a plan to follow the Biblical standard of humility and reconciliation in relationships. This effort towards reconciliation, formally called Project CARE, was led by Dave Bovenmyer and was instrumental in building unity with Christians within and outside of Great Commission."^[1]

In 1991, GCAC released a public statement acknowledging church error and weakness.^[2][3]

In the statement, GCC clarified its position on many issues, and admitted responsibility for mistakes grouped into two categories; problems resulting from a "prideful attitude", and problems as "a result of a misapplication or misin­terpreta­tion of Scripture." Issues discussed in the statement include:

• Failing to distin­guish between a command, and principle, and preference.
• Authoritarian and insensitive leadership.
• An "elitist attitude" towards other Christian organizations.
• Excessive and unbiblical church discipline.
• Improper response to criticism.
• Lack of emphasis on formal education.
• A belief that every man should become an elder.
• Treating dating as a sin.

The statement also listed steps taken, or to be taken, to correct these issues. No specific people or incidents were named in the statement, other than Secretary David Bovenmyer, whose signature was printed at the end of it. Their statement in its entirety is available here.

As of 1994, many former members felt the Weakness Statement was not enough or that it left-out other concerns, according to Ronald Enroth's book Recovering From Churches that Abuse. Enroth cites specific reform attempts made by GC and then quotes Dr. Paul Martin as saying that "some encouraging reforms" had been enacted since the departure of Jim McCotter. Martin then questions the extent of the reforms and states that many ex-members were not satisfied with the reforms when it came to the circulation of the Error Statement, revocation of excommunications, and apologies to and reconciliation with ex-members.

According to GCC, "During the late 1980s and early 1990s a concerted effort was made to reach out to people who felt that they had been hurt by GCI and its churches. At the initial urging of Tom Short, the GCI leaders and pastors published a paper as part of a plan to follow the Biblical standard of humility and reconciliation in relationships. This effort towards reconciliation, formally called Project CARE, was led by Dave Bovenmyer and was instrumental in building unity with Christians within and outside of Great Commission."^[1]

In 1991, GCAC released a public statement acknowledging church error and weakness.^[3][2][4] Secretary David Bovenmyer wrote:

We, the local pastors and national leaders of the Great Commission Association of Churches, are preparing this statement with the hope that we might accomplish three goals. First, it is intended to be a clear statement of the mistakes we believe we have made and the steps we have taken, and will continue to take, to rectify them. Secondly, the statement is a confession and a request for forgiveness from those who have been hurt by our errors. Finally, we have prepared this statement with the hope that it will be an important part of our plan for reconciliation, where possible, with former members, leaders, and others who, for various reasons are now estranged from us.^[2]

In the statement, GCC clarified its position on many issues, and admitted responsibility for mistakes grouped into two categories; problems resulting from a "prideful attitude", and problems as "a result of a misapplication or misin­terpreta­tion of Scripture." Issues discussed in the statement include:

• Failing to distin­guish between a command, and principle, and preference.
• Authoritarian and insensitive leadership.
• An "elitist attitude" towards other Christian organizations.
• Excessive and unbiblical church discipline.
• Improper response to criticism.
• Lack of emphasis on formal education.
• A belief that every man should become an elder.
• Treating dating as a sin.

The statement also listed steps taken, or to be taken, to correct these issues.^[2] Their statement in its entirety is available at the GCC website in the external links section below.

As of 1994, many former members felt the Weakness Statement was not enough or that it left-out other concerns, according to Ronald Enroth's book Recovering From Churches that Abuse:

Dr. Paul Martin, director of Wellspring and a former member of Great Commission International (as the group was formerly called), concurs with the opinions of many other former members:

Some encouraging reforms have occurred in recent years after the founder, Jim McCotter, left the movement in the late 1980s. However, the current leadership has not yet revoked the excommunication of its earlier critics. The admissions of error so far have been mainly confined to a position paper, the circulation of which has been questioned by many ex-members. Furthermore, Great Commission leaders have not yet contacted a number of former members who feel wronged and who have personally sought reconciliation. There has been some positive movement in that direction, but most ex-members that I have talked to are not fully satisfied with the reforms or apologies and feel that the issues of deep personal hurt and offense have not been adequately addressed.

Hey. I was just looking over the article, and a question came to mind. Why is the Martin Butz paper a reliable source? Was it published? If it was just a grad student's paper, I'm not sure if that qualifies. Has this been asked before (also, in the article it says "two research papers were published", but I don't see that Butz's was according to the source at the bottom. Gatorgalen (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[[11]] allows us to cite academic sources. Unless published elsewhere, the publisher of a Thesis/Dissertations is the University.Xanthius (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The recent adding of links to gcxweb for articles brings up an article weakness. I was recently looking over the WP:Citing sources policy and saw this paragraph "Say where you found the material:

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a Web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the Web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the Web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear."

How can we make this clear, in the article, that in many instances we have not actually seen the info in the source but only on a version of it put on a web page, in this instance a non-RS web page that has a clearly non-biased purpose in regards to the subject? Love to hear peoples' thoughts here.

p.S. Still waiting for a response to Butz question earlier - with no response I will assume it is not an RS and edit accordingly.Gatorgalen (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the actual sources that are linked to in this article. They are the same as what's published on the gcxweb website and the rick ross website. You can acquire copies of most of these newspaper articles from Larry Pile. If you need his contact information I can get it to you. I also have copies of the books and academic papers referenced here, and those were acquired from theological document archives and eBay. Xanthius (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You have seen every source in an original format? I would have thought only the person who put it up would have. Which is another issue - it is somewhat dubious to point to a website that does not even have an individual or organization willing to identify themselves with it. If you can honestly say you've seen every source then I'm fine with that. In the future if you cease editing it may become necessary to put that type of disclaimer, it's tough since there are so few editors who will be able to see original sources (myself included, I have probably seen 2-3 of the gcxweb sources personally at max). Gatorgalen (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of people identify themselves with GCMWarning.com every day. Lots of them are very open about their identity. Myself, for example - I'm an ex-GCM missionary who left because of organizational hypocrisy and mismanagement in October of 2007. My name is Nate Swinton and I live in Des Moines, IA. My email address is nate.swinton@gmail.com. You're just upset because Xanthius hasn't been open about who he personally is - and neither have the actual creators of GCMWarning.com. You've been needling him and Claude for months about it. The reason that you want them to come public is so that your organization (of which I was once a part) can directly and personally confront them. I know about instances of GCM and GCA pastors dropping by people's homes unannounced and rebuking/ex-communicating them. There are times when pastors of your movement have been straight-up bullies to "detractors" (and this isn't hearsay, as I'm sure you'll want to imply in your next response, I've seen it personally). I think that Xanthius and others are totally reasonable with keeping their identity private from your organization. I have had some of the most outrageous, ridiculous, un-Godly and slanderous things said about me and to my face in the last few months since leaving. I've been treated like a demon-possessed man in one cast. I don't blame anyone for hiding from the lack of accountability and personal character so prevalent on so many levels in the Great Commission Movement.

Anyway, Xanthius has made it clear where to acquire those sources. If you feel that they're so "dubious", why don't you take some ownership to improve the quality of the article and work to acquire them yourselves and verify their existence and content? Maybe they could all be posted in .pdf form somewhere here or in another stable location on the internet. Nswinton\^talk 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nate, long time no see. Some of your comments are more appropriate to email - if you wish to discuss things regarding the organization via email, I'd be more than happy to correspond with you more (I believe I'm still waiting to receive an email from you from my last hail way back). Anyway, as to the actual edit issue - I'm not upset about anything, nor do I personally feel that the sources are dubious. gcxweb and gcmwarning are entirely different sites (as far as I understand it). It's clear that gcmwarning type stuff isn't for wikipedia. I think anyone who has seen the gcxweb site (very well done btw, kudos for programming and simplicity, it must have taken a lot of time to type in) would admit that it is pretty peculiar to have a site that doesn't identify who put it up, in general. The main page, for example, is editorial in nature - stating someone's opinion(s) about the gc movement. The dubious part is that, unlike something like Rick Ross for example, we have no idea of the identity, skill, or integrity of the person typing it in. As wp editors, we're also sending people to a website we know nothing about and which is clearly editorial and states a purpose of showing a certain perspective.

Did Xanthius make clear where to obtain those sources? If so, I missed it, so please point me to that. It is extremely difficult to find most of those old articles, and I have neither the time nor the resources that certain people with certain agendas apparently do. I am honestly just asking for some actual honest dialogue on how we can fulfill the WP policy on this issue, which I recently ran accross and got me to thinking. We currently rely on 1? editor and 1? anonymous person who put up a website, who for all I know could be the same person. Just a little sketch in terms of showing readers credibility and being completely up front.

Although this is not the place to discuss it, I no more represent the GC movement than you do. I have no idea what happened in your situation - it sounds regrettable. I know John Hopler is quite possibly the most humble man I've ever met, especially in regards to this situation. I haven't "needled" xan and claude about not revealing their identity - i did confront them when they claimed to be non-biased, as I would continue to do if they tried to do so again. It's been very quite for the past several months I don't care about peoples' actual identities, only that they represent themselves honestly on WP. I have zero interest in having their identities revealed so they "can be confronted" by "my organization", as you put it. Again, just as with you, I do not possess, run, or represent the organization. This page is for discussing potential changes to the article, so please remove irrelevant parts of your and my exchange and leave this type of discussion to email in the future. Gatorgalen (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Galen; a bunch of GC papers, tapes, and verifiable newspaper articles are on that site: and if you think it's so hard to acquire that material...oops, you know who you can ask (that "website" the leadership "won't tell you about because it might plant seeds of doubt", said they to the crowd; incidentally I originally found and disbelieved that site until they said that...at which point I started investigating my own "doubts" and reservations). I don't find those original materials dubious...and I don't buy your front of neutrality, as I was one of many who sat through a farce story about one lone sole supposedly in sin and refusing to be disciplined posting a site that, when I asked its members, turned out to be the product of many people, some current members; you saying "no name, no credit" is like when cults accuse people of being dubious just in order to ferret-out a name, trying to find the critic to silence him or her; you should know better, and you do, and this

The "Great Commission movement" is an informal term used to describe a controversial body of churches and campus ministries, started by Jim McCotter in 1965. The group has a history of attracting criticism, having been classified as a "cult" by watchdog groups during the 1980's and 1990's, and criticized in dozens of newspapers, books, and research papers. Because the group has changed its name so frequently, and currently operates under so many legal identities, it has become necessary for clarity to refer to the entire movement under a broad term such as "Great Commission movement," "GCx," or just "GC."

is not overly tenditious; in fact it's downright fair for the mass of the type of materials the site has collected. Would you deny that GC has been controversial? That a statement of fact about Jim is an "editorial"ly natured comment? That it does not have a history of attracting criticism? Or that it hasn't been called a cult by cult-watch groups, such as CAN (which never removed that status...just was sued from existence by Scientology)? How about the newspapers and books? I can get the books online, or from the writers, and the newspapers are found in library, public, and online archives besides just that site. I started viewing this article as someone hoping to keep things fair and balanced (and not really editing much) until I started seeing members dilute its accuracy...which I couldn't stand: luckily there were plenty of watchdogs with the resources; I was also there as GC leadership announced how it had been sanitized, "made more fair" (they said)...i.e. expunged of details they didn't like. Oh yeah...I'm anonymous as I've witnessed how people get trounced and screwed with: don't start playing the cultic "anonymous=untrustworhty" game...especially when their details are verifiable: I won't pretend to make nice, though I will keep civility, with someone who ignores that last detail, the "verifiable" and proceeds thereby to call others' testimony, especially abused others, into question: that's neither Christian nor brotherly, and it's not appreciated. 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[[12]]

Carlaude de-categorized this page out of "Christian Denominations"; however Great Commission Churches are a voluntary member of the National Association of Evangelicals, which not only severally dug-into the Association (Great Commission Association of Churches) for misrepresenting itself as anything other than a Denomination (to the point that originally it vowed to never again let the organization into its membership ranks), stating in its conclusion to it investigation that it was, but also continues correctly classifies it as a denomination, as shown here: http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.members

GCAC/GCM/GCI/GCC continues to claim and deceive saying it is not a denomination, but its own umbrella, within which it is a voluntary member, says otherwise.

[[13]]

18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see what he was doing: he just didn't do it immediately, but Carlaude was re-classifying pages under more descriptive terms (now put "Christian Evangelical Denominations" for this one). Please explain next time, if possible, since this is a hotly contested page, unless you really just can't. Thanks. [[14]] 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted a piece of editing that removed several verifiably sourced criticisms of GC as well as obscured the clarity of the progression of the multi-organizational development of this movement. Some intermediate edits were also temporarily reverted, but I did the best I could to restore those which seemed valid. I should note that another editor had taken exception to the language "subsidiary" and replaced that language with "affiliated". I am not sure if the first edit had something to do with the overall clarity of the second. I am not even sure if I am satisfied with either adjective.

I hope to engage some dialogue about this and achieve a newer consensus about the relationship between these church bodies. The way I am conceiving of these relationships is kind of like AT&T after its breakup - these organizations were once part of a whole, now have seperate legal entities and the ability to function independently, but retain a cohesive identity regardless of legal status and have the opportunity to function as a whole in some situations regardless. Is that what our other editors are perceiving? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Claude, you asked me to look at this. I unfortunately am not able to make more than a rather general comment: The extent of detail both in the criticism section and the response to criticism section seems excessive, particularly the length of some of the quotes. DGG ( talk ) 14:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I would be amenable to trimming quotes altogether, or summarizing around a consensus about the main idea of the quotes. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Larry Pile quotes - expertise isn't questioned, but quotes are extensive. What he seems to say is that having once classified Great Commission as a Totalist Aberrant Christian Organization in 2002, as of 2011 he assessed the movement as having addressed his concerns.
• Tom Short quote - begins with a sharply rhetorical statement, relies upon hearsay about his mother to provide weight to an assessment of the practices of Great Commission. Un-encyclopedic and should be stricken.
• 1991 Statement of Error has been assessed as an important document in the changing of attitudes in the church, and reference to it should remain. However, the last sentence is rhetorical, as when we criticize politicians for not mentioning our troops. One could just as well assume that a public statement naming disaffiliates without their foreknowledge and permission might have a negative affect on them personally.
• 2010 Explanation of Criticism is valid, but the wiki-peacock "particularly notable" sticks out. Noted by whom? No support. Proverbs 18:17 quote out of context and from a purely logical perspective seems like, "Are not!" Drop the last sentence.
• Paul Martin's expertise is extensive. His quote, however, is lengthy and out of chronological order.
• George Grange II is a lawyer, not a theologian nor a psychologist. His area of expertise is finance. No weight, and unsourced. Remove. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Another thought to prevent page blanking on the basis that various Great Commission 501(c3)'s are "unrelated" is to more clearly establish the ongoing relationship between GCC member Tom Short and various national GCM campus ministries as has been reported in campus newspapers and to demonstrate mutual participation in the annual Faithwalkers conference in Missouri. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Doing my best now to work backwards from the diff to identify any valid, sourceable elements to the changes. In the past, some edits like pointing out that Daylights became Faithwalkers Journal were helpful, and now is a good time to take a second look at any changes which work. Also, another job would be to look at the article at maximum sourcing and see which sources might be missing. ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey folks—I'm jumping in to ask some questions about this page. It looks like this page has been seriously controversial over the years--wow! To declare myself, I'm the communications director for Great Commission Ministries/ www.gcmweb.org. My name is Chris Ridgeway. Also, I'm a definite newbie to editing Wikipedia (I had to look up how to even edit this talk page), so thanks for any patience.

So, the team at GCM has really never tried to edit or follow this article much and it shows! A couple questions:

• I notice a lot of factual inaccuracies all over this article and a misunderstanding the organizational relationship of "GCM." For example, GCM doesn't "own" or oversee any ministries. GCM is a mission agency that operates as a service agency for local churches, church network, and ministries. We wouldn't write a "GCM church" or a "GCM campus ministry" for instance. All churches and ministries are "owned" by someone else. We only support missionaries. We still know it's somewhat common for some people to say "GCM church" but it's not factually accurate.
• GCM is not "the campus and international mission agency for GCAC." We originally were, so it's somewhat understandable why it says this, because we were co-founded by that group in the 1989. Until mid-2000s we mostly only worked with groups that spun off from that (there were several). But these days only about 20% or so? of our missionaries are connected to GCAC (for instance, I have little connection with GCAC aside from having heard of them and I've been with GCM almost 12 years). We are an independent evangelical agency based in Orlando, FL who works with a wide network of evangelical ministries. We have an independent board of directors, most of whom don't attend churches associated with the "Great commission church movement." (Dave Bovenmeyer does). We maintain a friendship with GCAC, but as far as I know, they do a great deal of campus ministry and missions that doesn't involve us.

So how to I go about correcting these items? It's a little overwhleming to look at this and go, geesh: where would I begin editing? I don't want to mess much up, and more, don't want to start controversy. I'm not sure how I'd produce secondary or tertiary sources that I can think of (though I have plenty of primary primary sources such as Annual Ministry Reports, audit reports, etc. but from what I'm reading these aren't supposed to be used much on Wikipedia). I'd suggest that the re-direct for Great Commission Ministries to this page doesn't make much sense to me. To be honest, I'd be fine if the entire portion about GCM was removed. It seems to me GCM would either have its own independent page, or that it would be removed entirely, because I'm not certain we even meet the wikipedia notability standards as I read them. Anyway, that's a lot to start, but thanks for any help.Chris.ridgeway (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are on the same page, it is established that there is a Great Commission church movement. Even primary sources indicate that.

Completely agree there is a "Great Commission church movement." GCM was founded out of this "movement" in the late 80s, so that's fair—we say we have a "common history" with these groups. Today, however, we're pretty independent. For instance, the board of GCC (who I'm not entirely sure is on that), has no say over what our own independent board does. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• [15]
• GCM serves and partners with GCC and the rest of Great Commission movement

The second source discusses one way in which GCM is involved in the movement. Therefore it is not original research to make the connection. In which further ways is GCM involved in the greater movement? Among others:

• As you estimate, about 20% of GCM missionaries are connected to GCC.
• You have rightly observed the connection between a key person in GCC and the GCM board of directors (Dave Bovenmeyer)
• Primary sources indicate GCM leaders have published in Faithwalkers Journal, a GCC devotional, about their missions.

I actually have no idea who publishes the Faithwalkers journal (and remember, I'm the communications director for GCM!). I do assume it comes from GCC somewhere, and Dave B would probably know. Organizationally, GCM hasn't really ever done much with the Faithwalkers stuff or conference (I know there is a conference named that: I have never been). We have helped administratively run the IGNITE conference a number of years--you'll notice that it was sorta a "competing" conference with the Faithwalkers one that appeared in 2000. Another question wold be "who are GCM leaders?" If you are using names that are on the masthead of this article (like John Hopler I see there...) these are leaders of GCC not GCM. For example, the GCM Executive Director since 2006 is Tom Mauriello. He's not mentioned here, which makes sense because he really don't have a ton of connection to the "Great Commission church movement" aside from when we talk with leaders for missionary issues in one of the churches that belongs to them. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As of 2008, Dave Bovenmeyer was in charge of GCC Publishing. IGNITE is a very interesting parallel. Is there a contrast? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. I think. I've never read it. :) Yeah, so, as things went, about 2000 or so, GCC was really de facto its own group, and GCM + GCM churches were sorta separate. They did some things together (mostly cause some older pastors have friendships across the group lines), but leaders like me (in my 30s) really didn't have much connection to GCC. So In the early 2000s, the IGNITE conference was started by the "GCM Churches" (now Collegiate--they don't use "CCN") group and administered by GCM Orlando (setup online registration, admin, etc). The dates were almost the same as Faithwalkers--and GCC churches or groups went to Faithwalkers, and GCM/Collegiate groups went to IGNITE. (and there are campus kind of groups on both sides of that, which is why it's not 100% accurate to say GCM is campus... it is, but GCC has it's own campus stuff too). From then on, the groups really haven't attended the same events for about 12-15 years. So again, similar origins, but de facto (and formally) different groups. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Secondary sources who discuss the greater movement, do not cease to speak of it as a movement when it reorganizes or renames. North and South, 2002 Christian Post, 2008

Thanks for these links! I had never seen either one, actually. The Jim McCotter one doesn't seem relevant at all: I've heard of his name in the context of GCC, but he has almost nothing to do with GCM. To be honest, I think of him as a little sorta weird/scary. But he's had zero connection to anything I've ever done, so I can't speak to it. The Christian Post article is helpful: that was right at the 2004/5 transition. It seems nearly completely accurate. The big shift is that the next year after that, Greg Guevara and the board started trying to make the shift clarifying that GCM wasn't a denomination but only a service mission agency. The new directors set a new direction, essentially. In 2006, they agreed to serve outside the GC groups. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I submit therefore that it is entirely appropriate that GCM searches redirect to this article.

So, I agree that the history has the same roots, but it isn't the same now. Maybe like how AT&T was broken into a lot of groups and Verizon was one of them and then now is independent? Probably an imperfect analogy, but that's how it is. These days, you wouldn't redirect Verizon to a former parent company. I could see how GCM would deserve a mention like "In 1989, GCC founded the mission agency GCM to serve missionaries on US campuses and abroad. Today, GCM is an independent agency serving the broader evangelical world" Chris.ridgeway (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

However, hearing your assertion that GCM does not currently have churches per se may be entirely accurate now that I have researched a little further. It seems that GCM has already reorganized to focus on preparing and supporting church planters, while the churches thus planted now form a network which has been called Great Commission Ministries Churches but may yet reorganize under a new name. As recently as I can place it, as of 2006 GCM listed their associated churches on the GCM website. This is no longer the case. Many churches-formerly-identified-as-GCM-campus-churches now more simply identify as campus ministries of Great Commission Churches.

Yes, you're almost exactly right here (though with "preparing church planters", we mostly only do training in ministry fundraising since we don't oversee things like theology or ministry method--individual church groups do their own training and it varies). Since 2004 Jeff Kern and later Tom Mauriello had lead GCM to partner with multiple groups outside of the historic "great commission church movement." We could still talk about "associated churches", but it would be in the sense of "they use us as their mission agency"--not that they are part of a denomination that GCM owns or something. Say, for instance, the way Pioneers does. We'll talk to just about any church... your church could come and talk with us about partnering with GCM for missionaries! You'll notice we partner with a wide variety of church planting groups right now:

* Exponential

* Verge

* Acts 29 Acts 29 speaking about them recommending church planters work with GCM: 7 Top Issues Church Planters Face #2: Finances

* Missio Alliance

typically we work with "post-denominational" networks. So, for instance, Methodist churches already have a mission agency through the denomination, so they don't need something like GCM. But many of the groups that like to work with us are much younger and are part of the newer Christian evangelical world that doesn't like denominations quite as much and typically need lots of backend help to support missionaries. So we do that for many of the examples above. GCC remains one of the groups but the numbers of missionaries we've had with them has declined for many years, and they are similar to any other group we work with from our perspective. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Also re-reading what you've said above about about the church groups--it's part right and part wrong. the "GCM churches" group was called that from 2006-2012 mainly because they couldn't pick another name (really). They were independent from GCC (told you there were a lot of groups!). They were mostly likely to say a "GCM campus ministry"... but mainly this was a branding problem, not an organizational reality. Their board is centered out of Michigan and headed by Greg VanNada. The not-quite-right part about what you said is that they would never identify as a "campus ministry of Great Commission Churches"--they're not the same group (awesome at naming, huh?). Anyway, key info: the "GCM churches" group has recently announced a new name: the Collegiate Church Network, in order to help people understand the difference. As for GCM in Orlando - we continue to support lots of missionaries (a little less than 50% of our total?) with Collegiate and probably we have the closest ties to this group, but again, we do not exclusively serve them. Greg VanNada is the board representative from them on our board. (for larger networks/partners, we have established a practice of having 1 board member representative on our board. Acts 29 has one as does Ecclesia Network, Great Commission Churches, and Collegiate). Link with more detail to help explain this: GCM in ministry partnership with the Collegiate Church Network Helpful?Chris.ridgeway (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the campus ministries you were thinking of (Campus Church Network) are not the campus ministries I was thinking of. They are pretty evenly split between GCC and CCN. You might note (I can reference something from archives if necessary) that a few editors here had stated they were members of GCM churches, so quite the branding problem, I agree. It seems that those editors were involved in what seem to be now rightfully referred to as Great Commission Churches ministries on college campuses, some of them raising funds through GCM. You sure there's no notability factor there? That would be the biggest functional difference between a Baby Bell and a Verizon. First glance at group names would of course suggest there is a common origin. Let's continue to work on this. My goal is to go through and reliably and verifiably document what's changed and differences between CCN and GCC. We can always reach out to other editors for a third opinion if you feel I am not viewing this correctly. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I still agree on common origins, just not the same today. I think if there is notability for GCM, then we are on a separate page because none of the things at the top of this page: Founder, Founded (dates), Headquarters location (we are in Orlando), Key People, Members, Motto, Website... these are all incorrect for GCM (I could add a table of correct ones for GCM). Professional memberships--like NAE, ECFA--are different too. Anyway--thanks for your help on looking at this. Let's talk more about documentation, like what I might need to locate to help backup or source stuff. I definitely still won't make changes to the page until we can talk it out. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is important information and does serve to distinguish GCM. It should be included if nothing else for clarity. In the event of a content fork, it would fill the infobox. I think I should start a new section so we can make sure to focus on these things. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for using the talk page and beginning the discussion the right way. I would like to take some time and research your concern more carefully, but I think it is very likely some changes are in order. I'm currently involved in some ongoing arbitration over the Jerusalem article, but I think we should move on this soon so as to allay some of your concerns. May I have no more than a week to give this my full attention? ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep! Absolutely we can take our time: I'm not in a crazy hurry, and I'm willing to try to answer as many questions as I can and help provide documentation. Like I said, GCM has pretty much neglected helpful communications (like most non-profits, we don't have tons of staff, and so communications hasn't been a high priority in the past from what I understand), that I realize it will probably take a while to help clear up how we are distinct from GCC. The names definitely don't help either (we've talked about changing it so is much more clear that we are separate! But it seems people are suspicious of names changes so we're unsure it would be helpful). So are you a regular editor here? I still don't entirely understand how this works, and you seem to have been involved here a lot ps- I went line by line through your comments and added comments underneath by using double colons. Is that helpful? Or is is better to reply in all one block? apologies if I didn't do it right. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Collegiate, Ecclesia is coming up a couple of ways. Kairos Los Angeles was on the 2006 list of GCM churches. It is now a part of Ecclesia. Also, in trying to figure out exactly what organizational affiliation Jim Pace and NCLF had at the time of the Virginia Tech shooting, I found that both Collegiate and Ecclesia claim NCLF as a member church. Which is it? Is it both? Is it disputed? Or does NCLF have a Collegiate church and an Ecclesia church? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I can answer this. NLCF in one church Virginia is part of both groups (and actually I think possibly the Virgina Baptists as well?). No dispute or anything. They are most strongly aligned with Ecclesia. Staff at NLCF attend Eccleisa gatherings, but not Collegiate's (although Pastor Jim Pace I think has tried to keep up a good relationship between the two). Part of this is understanding the world of churches these days is more about "tags" not just "folders." Old school denominations, a church was either Methodist or Presbyterian, but not both. Today, many of the newer networks have specific purposes, and so churches may join several.

Ecclesia has no relationship to GC movement things at all, excepting any NLCF ties to Collegiate. GCM as a mission agency does support Ecclesia for some staff. JR Woodward is one, he sits on the GCM board as the Ecclesia representative. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ecclesia mentions that a small group of six pastors formed the network. Which pastors? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know for certain if Ecclesia doesn't have that on their website. I personally know a few of those guys and think it's a great group, but I don't know who they count as "founders." Chris Backert and the others on the Ecclesia staff page are all key. I just know this though because I've personally thought about planting a church with Ecclesia so I've attended Ecclesia events. Anyway, sorry, I'm getting off topic re:Great Commission Chris.ridgeway (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Per the Chicago Agreement, does a hypothetical InterVarsity interest in recruiting a leader within a GCC campus ministry pose a problem? What if they are interested in recruiting a leader within Ecclesia? Is it fine, or can Collegiate say, "Hands off, they're ours"? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

GCM wasn't involved with the Chicago agreement so I don't entirely know. Not sure I entirely get your question. I can say that when I was a campus minister with a Collegiate church (supported through GCM) years ago, we regularly encouraged students to be part of Crusade, Intervarsity, our ministry, etc but encouraged them that it was usually more healthy/productive to choose just one and not try to straddle say three. We were good friends with Cru, IV, catholic church and other Christian leaders on our campus so we talked pretty regularly as well. Anyway, that doesn't directly answer your question, just our common practices Chris.ridgeway (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Having researched into GCM extensively and having worked towards the creation of new Wikipedia content, and per your wishes, Chris, I have been working on a separate GCM article. I am still working on minor details which may have bearing here, there, and in disambiguation of "Great Commission Ministries", as this moniker is used elsewhere in ways which do not seem to be related in the Bahamas, in India, and historically (though I have not reached a certain conclusion to the case in India, as you do have foreign missions - the Bahamian group was founded two years previous). There are also some other uses of Great Commission Ministries in other contexts, like a Baptist degree program I seem to recall. For now, I would like you to point out any sentence where you have objections, either here or in the new Great Commission Ministries article - like everything here, a work in progress. Upon your approval, I will request a third opinion to make sure we abide by the collaborative goals of Wikipedia. I want other editors to check for notability and neutrality to assure that we are working far outside anything which could reflect poorly on the project. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Solid! I've glanced at the new article you've started here, and I think it's really helpful. It feels incredibly more accurate for the reader as to who GCM is and what we do. Thanks a ton for all your time and work on this, ClaudeReigns. I feel like you've done some great research so far (pulling up some sources I didn't know about!) and been thoughtful and helpful. Notes or answers:

* we do have some overseas, but it's not tons. Mostly in Europe. Not Bahamas. We DO have one missionary couple in India, from an Acts 29 church if I recall, point me to what you're looking at and I can confirm or not.

* With this new article: would you be okay with me doing some editing directly on it? I've obviously held off completely so far (to make sure there is no sense of conflict of interest at all). But I can make some helpful and efficient changes (for instance, Great Commission Students isn't right, but for about 8 months we were known as Great Commission Campus Ministries, and then campus was removed because it was realized we were already doing internal missions that wasn't campus...). Your structure is already really good I think. You can review the edits also help me learn how to cite sources well, or point out what I need to improve. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Any edits which you make could prejudice the new article in a DYK nomination, which would give it the widest promotion. Roughly what gcmweb.net gets for hits in a month - all in one day. But this does not negate your privelege to edit Wikipedia, even on an article for an organization who compensates you, so long as it is not disruptive, and you have not been disruptive. These rules govern my userspace. I don't feel that giving permission to edit my userspace is in my best interest or protects Wikipedia, but as always, I will strive to be open to your suggestions. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Still a newbie here, so I had to look up what you mean by DYK, but I get it now I think. Like I said, you've been very helpful, I was just sorta feeling like I wasn't pulling any weight and you were having to do all the work! Since there's a reason for me not to, I'm fine with holding off and only using the talk page for now. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I will try to verify a citation interpreting GCS as a working title of GCM before incorporation, or drop the reference. I suspect the reference here could be WP:OR as it predates GCM by a couple of years, but have been unable to verify the news source cited. We can tag it for verification. It all comes down to whether GCS was ditched as a result of the 1989 reorganization, or if GCM built upon that. Both campus-oriented mission agencies. But whether they such statements are properly referenced has everything to do with good work here. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagged linkage to GCS here, removed there, pending source verification or better sourcing. Any other specific accuracy concerns? ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I need to backup and read through the article with a detailed eye and suggest any corrections or additions. I'll use the talk page on the new page like you suggested. I'll also try to continue to pursue sources and bring up what I can add that may be helpful. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Currently Jim Pace in Spring 2007 and the 2004 Rock ISU music worship team (photo) are referenced to GCM, and given your concerns, I didn't know if you would find those accurate or not. Many people identified with GCM at that time when involved in a Great Commission campus ministry, and no one has ever challenged those references, but feel free to dispute these, and we'll nail down better sourcing. ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

2004 photo from Iowa State campus is definitely not "GCM"--it's GCC. GCC Find a Church (it looks like that church's website is down or forgotten, although apparantly its linked to a GCC church in the same town called Stonebook because I found this The Rock. The confusion is probably that GCM has off and on supported staff at the Rock: I searched on our website, it looks like we do support several there. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

2007 NLCF reference isn't correct either, although it's a lot more understandable because NLCF historically was GCMC If it were brought up to date, it would be "Collegiate" there. If it remained accurate for 2007, it would be GCMC. If the reference were changed to Jim Pace himself, then it's okay to say "GCM-supported missionary Jim Pace" or something, because we still support him. (See again "Is my missionary still part of GCM or Collegiate Church Network?" in FAQ for Ministry Donors about Collegiate Chris.ridgeway (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see that, although I'd wonder if the worship team was on GCM staff at The Rock ISU by the same token. I've got a new source from the plant/relocation to Orlando which focuses on the role of music in worship, so it should be important to make a determination if the image is appropriate to the new article or if it should be left out in favor of other free-use imagery. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the rule of thumb we could use is: if the text refers to the person (missionary or pastor), it may be correct to modify with "GCM." If the language refers to the church, it isn't correct--today it's either GCC or Collegiate. For articles from before 2006 we can expect "GCM church" to show up regularly, but it's a style question how to treat those now. They mean either GCC (which would have been a misnomer even at the time) or Collegiate (for which "GCM Church/GCMC" was correct up until recently, if ridiculously confusing), and would belong with those entries, generally speaking, in order to trace the actual lineage of organization. For the Rock ISU photo, since nobody is identified in the photo, it's probably best to assume that it still is correctly attributed to the Rock ISU. In this case, I'd see as GCM the "misnomer" usage, since that church has never claimed to be GCM (and the website points to GCC) and so "GCC" would be the correct designation. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Subsections are there to be filled in. We should accompany the information with the most authoritative of sources, such as founding documents. These will clarify the differing legal statuses, which is important. For example, Collegiate is a signatory to the Chicago Agreement; GCC is not. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Name: Great Commission Ministries
• Founder: Jeff Kern (although let me check into records if we should add some other names here as well. Dave Bovenmeyer was involved from the GCC angle I think. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC))

My best understanding now is that Dave Bovenmyer was the initial President of GCM, as is stated at gccweb.org and supported by Larry Pyle in Marching to Zion. A cache of the GCM website at zoominfo states that Kern was ordained in 1987, wrote the business plan for GCM, and became its President in 1991. I know that isn't what his linkedin profile states, but those aren't generally reviewed by peers. I know that his departure from GCM is the object of curiosity of ex-members. I have no WP:RS to address nor answer their questions. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Where did you find something about GCM on the GCC website? I didn't know they had anything there and I'd like to read it if they do. Could make sense Dave B. was first director, although I don't have exact years--it must have been very short. There is a Tom Schrader (might be spelled wrong) at some point too. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom Schroeder and Dave Bovenmyer go way back, they were both editors of The Cause. Schroeder was the editor before DB, if I recall correctly, and Schroeder served as Chairman for a few years. I know TS was Chair in 1999. By 2001, it was Michael Etchison, also became a member of the Council for National Policy. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Date Founded: 1989

September? ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No idea the month: if it's important I can try to look. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Headquarters: Orlando
• EIN: 521707002
• Key People: Tom Mauriello, Executive Director

Add Dave Bovenmyer, initial ED and current board; Jeff Kern, 2nd ED; others to follow. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Greg Guevara was after Jeff, and then Tom Mauriello. Is key people current leadership or historical? It makes sense to me to list Dave B as a historic Dir and current board member representing GCC, but he doesn't have much to do with daily GCM world... (I didn't actually know who he was until a couple years ago). Current chairman of the Board Noel Heikkenen and former chairman Greg Guv maybe fit more in "key people" today as opposed to historic Chris.ridgeway (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Memberships: ECFA, NAE, Missio Nexus (soon to be WAE as well)
• Motto: (there isn't one currently: the best we got is the purpose statement here Chris.ridgeway (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC))
• Purpose Statement: Great Commission Ministries (GCM) mobilizes missionaries to work in local churches and ministries for the purpose of evangelism, discipleship and church planting.
• Website: http://gcmweb.org/

So is this the start of an info box that we can use on a new page Great Commission Ministries? Chris.ridgeway (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Name: Collegiate Church Network (formerly Great Commission Ministries Churches)
• Founder: (probably Greg VanNada) Chris.ridgeway (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Date Founded: (this is tough to answer. 2006. But really earlier. I don't know well enough.) Chris.ridgeway (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

IRS confirmed tax-exempt status in 2009. I'm not finding sourcing previous to this yet. I'd really need something like the Articles of Incorporation. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder if they never filed with the IRS until later? (not the most, uh, administratively gifted group). I don't work for Collegiate (I did for a few years while I was completing seminary, before I moved to GCM) but I think I know who to call or ask about Articles of Incorporation. Let me try to get back to you to see if I can get more concrete sources on that Chris.ridgeway (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• EIN: 261809150
• Headquarters: (Michigan, although they don't really have an official office that I know of) Chris.ridgeway (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Key People: Greg VanNada
• Motto: Planting churches on campus
• Website: http://collegiatechurchnetwork.com/