Talk:Jesus Army/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

1 Some other quotes
2 Over-critical style
3 JA Business ventures
4 Charity and legal obligations
5 Covenant - life-long implications made clear
6 Jesus Fellowship Community Trust - some quotes
7 Jesus Army Charitable Trust - some more quotes
8 Please review article now
9 Covenant membership - some quotes
10 Celibacy again again
11 Suggestions for fine tweaking
12 "Orthodoxy"
13 Tweaks -- Intro (agreed)
14 Postpositions
15 Stop- I am a bear with a very small brain -
16 Jeffrey K. Hadden
17 Pictures (active)
18 Tweaks -- BU and EA (agreed)
19 Tweaks -- References (3) (agreed)
20 Tweaks -- References (agreed)
21 Tweaks -- References (2) (agreed)
22 Tweaks -- Current practices (agreed)
23 Tweaks -- Current practices
24 Tweaks -- Beliefs (agreed)
25 Tweak -1969 (agreed)
26 Tweaks (suggestions) (agreed)
27 What will be the state of play once agreement is reached?
28 References - JA books by the JA themselves
29 State of play now
30 Unsourced new additions
31 Suggested additions
- 31.1 JESUS ARMY ONLINE
- 31.2 MEMBERSHIP

Some other quotes

Here are some other quotes I've not presented before. I apologise for the length of the Hunt one, but I think his comments are so significant that they need to be seen. They put some of the matters we have consider already in context.

Wright, Nigel in Charismatic Christianity p.66

… the community’s evangelistic wing, the Jesus Army, has engaged in aggressive and effective street evangelism among the marginalized sections of society. … In recent years Noel Stanton has been working hard to re-establish fraternal relationships wherever possible, but the style and aggressiveness of the community clearly pose problems for some. The Jesus Army is highly active in evangelism amongst the poor and styles itself in this regard upon the early Salvation Army, using for this purpose designer flak jackets and an annual conference in the Wembley Area which self-consciously celebrates being “over the top” in its worship style and intensity. The Jesus fellowship has a strategy for extension based upon the development of ‘community houses’ throughout the country. Not surprisingly, the Fellowship’s intense style and all-engulfing requirement of commitment lead to occasional allegations of abuse from disillusioned former members.

Hunt, Steven J. ‘The Radical Kingdom of the Jesus Fellowship’ in Pneuma This article considers the growth, dynamics and structure of one of the most noteworthy of the European charismatic communities: the New Creation Christian Community (NCCC), otherwise known as the Bugbrooke Community, a charismatic collective which has remained in existence in Britain for some thirty years [in 1998]. The NCCC is the communal element of the Jesus Fellowship which, in turn, is a distinctive “strand” of the “New Church” wing in Britain – matching, in scale of membership, those such as New Frontiers, the Pioneers, and the Ichthus Christian fellowship… There are two principal reasons why the broader Jesus Fellowship movement is significant. Firstly, the innovations associated with the fellowship in terms of the overlapping considerations of a distinct theology and its communal structure which has brought to the surface a number of paradoxes as the communitarian wing has expanded and developed. Secondly, it ranks as one of the largest communities in Europe, charismatic or otherwise. Controversial at times, it may be deemed successful in terms of sustaining community living, numerical growth and a unique evangelizing ministry to the poorer sections of society, or what is frequently designated as “the underclass.” For these reasons, the NCCC has been a source of inspiration and frequently attracts visitors from Europe and beyond who wish to observe, and sometimes imitate, a vibrant and enduring model of charismatic community life...

[p.23] While the Jesus Fellowship had no direct links with the Californian Jesus People, it did provide a similar model in terms of communal living and the adoption of countercultural themes. … In Britain, the Jesus Fellowship has endured, in many ways in its original form – retaining a communal life of austerity and simplicity which is rather reminiscent of traditional anabaptist communities. At the same time, it has continued to develop a culture which is “up to date” in the sense that it carries aspects of the 1990s youth-culture and has adapted for the purpose of evangelizing the young, particularly those who are to be found living on the streets of Britain’s towns and cities.

[p.24] … the Jesus Fellowship has its own distinct origins and has developed in its own right, both as a charismatic community and as a powerful force of evangelism… The first stage was between 1968-73 and began in Bugbrooke… The revival saw the creation of the Jesus Fellowship as a distinct and separate movement from the Baptist roots from whence it came. However, it was not until the years from 1974 to 1978 that the fellowship entered a second stage of development when a community was officially established for its growing membership… By the end of the 1970s it was clear that the expanding membership was largely derived from two distinct social origins. For the first three years the core charismatic group that met at the Bugbrooke chapel was joined by new converts drawn principally from “bikers,” drug-abusers, “hippies” and other elements of the counter-culture to be found in Northampton and its outlying areas. … This membership profile again mirrored development in the Jesus Movement in the USA… The third stage In the development of the Jesus Fellowship, between 1979-1986, was a difficult an unstable period. At one level, the economic and political climate of the times ran counter to the broader philosophy of the fellowship with its emphasis on communitarianism and the sharing of property. These were the years of consecutive New Right Conservative governments in Britain that preached the alleged virtues of the free market and materialism. In turn, this political agenda helped generate a wider culture of individualism, privatism and self-interest which was hardly the ideal climate for the thic of community living and self-sacrifice. There was however, considerably more to the story of these troubled years. Criticism from both the secular world and other Christians centered upon accusations that the Jesus Fellowship was cultist in nature. The chief charges focused upon the poor living conditions of communal members, the “shepherding” practices used for new converts and young members, the claimed forceful separation of members from their natural families, and the prevention of the community’s children from integrating with their peers in the outside world. At the same time, the rapid purchase of properties in the Northampton area, by the Jesus Fellowship, alienated local people fed on media rumors and the notoriety of unconventional Christian living. Such controversies and the apparent failure to integrate with other Christians, especially in and around Northampton, led to the fellowship being expelled from the Baptist Union and, in 1986, from the Evangelical Alliance. There were, however, more favorable responses and vehement defenses by sympathetic Christians. As it was put in one Christian magazine in 1986:

The Bugbrooke community have faced accusations of breaking up families .. and aggressive authoritarianism … No evidence has been put forward to substantiate these claims… Theologically they seem as sound as a bell… No other group of Christians has been the brunt of so much criticism, lies, scandal, accusations and suspicion as the Jesus Fellowship. On the other hand, there are numerous Christians from house fellowships and other denominations who have gained a very favourable impression of the Jesus People.

As a result of controversy and persecution, the Jesus Fellowship turned more defensive and introverted to the extent that it became, even if temporarily, sectarian in nature. Retreating from secular society and those who persecuted it, the fellowship increasingly designated the outside world as “Babylon” [overstated in my view]. This turning inward did unsettle many of the members who had to re-evaluate their commitment. A number left, but the community survived. In fact, although this period was marked by controversy and external persecution it was, paradoxically, also a period of sustained membership growth and increasing evangelizing activity into urban areas. The latest stage of the fellowship’s growth since 1987 [to 1998] has been marked by two key developments. In that year the Jesus Army was formed as the evangelical [should be “evangelistic”] wing of the Jesus Fellowship… The second development was the greater openness to other churches and the enty of the Jesus Fellowship into the charismatic mainstream… prominent leaders of practically all the strands of the British charismatic and Pentecostal scene have spoken at the large public meetings of the Jesus fellowship, and are frequent contributors to its major publications “Jesus Life-style” and the “Jesus Revolution Street Paper”.

[p.40] The decision in the late 1980s to become more open and link with other New Churches has been of particular importance. So has the decision, over the last decade, to broaden the membership so that now community residences [residents] form only one-third of the church [true in 1998, now one-quarter]… If the fellowship survives, it will undoubtedly remain a distinctive element of neo-Pentecostalism. To some in the broader movement, the Jesus Fellowship will always be something of an enigma, tending towards exclusiveness and displaying a sectarianism incongruent with contemporary Pentecostalism. To others, the Jesus Fellowship will continue to epitomize the fullest expression of Christian and Pentecostal life.

John Campbell (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, a lot of food for thought there. I'll look closely at it tomorrow. I think acknowledging the criticisms raised by some of those investigators should help this article's future stabilty. For the present, how are we doing so far? Bearing in mind it still has a way to go... any serious issues? Rumiton (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed we've got this far. Thanks for your persistence. John Campbell (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Got to wonder what proof for these allegations would have satisfied the authors. It seems that no matter how many people claim to have been pressured, it makes no difference. The presumption that without a signed confession from Noel Stanton, the JA must be innocent is incredible. Rumiton, you know about NRMs....what sort of evidence can prove anything which a cult or sect denies....especially when victims are considered unreliable witnesses, while cults/sects' own spokespeople are given the benefit of the doubt?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, this niggled reaction was to some of the quotes, not to anything you have written, incidentally.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the authors are less biased than you, Pete? Surely the quotes speak for themselves. I don't think the Jesus Army really fits the comparison with the Peoples' Temple at Jonestown that you expressed approval for in the past, for example. John Campbell (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty certain I have never approved of that comparison, John, though I have certainly shared the fear expressed by some that the spirallying isolationism which characterised the first twenty years or so of the fellowship could easily have ended in disaster of some sort, particularly as there have indeed been many casualties over the years. That said, I have mellowed over the years and I don't think I am the same man who left the JA. You must remember that I was only 21 when I left. The only anger I feel about it now has been provoked here. You should know from lurking on JAW and from reading my blog (which I am quite sure you will have perused - here you go, if not http://ja-1984.blogspot.com/ ) that my attitude in the last couple of years (as for instance when I supported DG's planning application) has been conciliatory. Perhaps if you hadn't been quite so anxious to deny policies which you have anyway moved away from, I wouldn't feel quite so irked; your implication being that I am lying - with the consequence that you compound the hurt that we felt by those policies. Sorry, stupidly long sentences - am tired - too late to go back and edit themBristol Sycamore (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just one of the things I found when I looked through the file of your past comments. John Campbell (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Ah well, I guess what I said last night gives that some context.Didn't know I had a dossier!Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I should remind all again that the talk page is for discussing ways of improving the article, not engaging in polemics about the subject. Rumiton (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But Pete, part of the problem, maybe all of it, is that an encyclopedia is not the place for such a subjective evaluation of the subject. When you use words like "pressured" and "victims" you must see how difficult it is to get anything concrete from them to add to the article. If someone says, "Joe Bloggs, who was an elder in the New Religious Church of God, was beastly to me in 1986," there isn't much that can be done or said about it. It seems to me from my readings over the past few weeks that the Jesus Army is comprised of people who have had an extreme experience of life, and as a result have developed extreme and uncompromising views and practices. I do think the article should acknowledge that more than it now does, and will try to work towards that, but your attempt to "prove" that people were "pressured" or "victimised," in the absense of legal material, will probably fail. With all due respect, these folk strike me as muscular Christians on steroids. I am sure they do truly great and worthwhile things, but when someone goes home with a gang of skinheads wearing combat uniforms they should not complain afterwards that things were not always done gently. Rumiton (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but the JFC wasn't an army when I was there, and the character of the church was very different. Concerns about the authoritarianism, insensitivity and seemingly unloving nature of policies - and the way they were applied in the 1980s concerned the major activity of the church which was not "outreach" but building community. Community was about support for each other, nurture, brotherhood etc. It WAS evangelistic, of course, but evangelism brought people into the loving fold as we had created it for ourselves. Being submissive implied a great deal of trust in eldership who were ill-trained, insensitive and clumsy. Checks and balances did not work and serious damage was done.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I know I shall fail in a legal sense because at least at law witnesses would be heard and their experiences weighed in the balance. Here, the very people who know most about what goes on in the JFC are not allowed to be considered credible witnesses. I understand why that is so here, but it does mean that this article can never hope to adequately reflect the true nature of the JA. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Jossi said much the same when we started this collaboration, that Wikipedia articles can not describe the "true nature" of anything very much. We can only reflect the current state of understanding as expressed by reliable sources. Regarding the change in nature of the Fellowship over the years, perhaps that is why the JA evolved out of a disillusioning attempt at forming a Christian community? Obviously I have no idea, and should not be discussing it here. Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, but do you think the reader understands that distinction? Most people are not "in on" Wiki. They just want to find out about something, so go to the online encyclopedia and it is all very well wiki saying it isn't like any other reference source, the fact is that people look things up in good faith, imagining they will get something approximating truth. Wouldn't you say? Here's something I will guarantee....just as the JFC point to their membership of the EA as proof of their bona fides, they will say, you see, wikipedia says we are just an orthodix church too and it wouldn't even listen to the people critical of us. JA people on the JAWtch forum are already doing it..saying, haha, that Peter Eveleigh broke the rules of evidence, even wikipedia can see he isn't credible. That sort of thingBristol Sycamore (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article will end up calling the JA "orthodox." The sources do not say that at all, though they don't go as far as you might wish in delineating that. Have a look at the last edits and come back on them. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

John, would you mind summarizing the main points of the JF Trust system? About 50-80 words would be about right. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's true, Wikipedia is still a mystery to most people. The myth is "you can write whatever you want on Wiki," and by some mysterious process ("the wisdom of crowds") it comes out right. As we are showing there is a lot more involved, and the result is something quite specific, but hopefully not far from the truth. It is a good thing. Or so I strongly believe. Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you can see what a ruddy nuisance I must have been to the JA, even as a new member. I am not easily persuaded of things, but I do think that you are bringing me round, Rumiton.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope no one (John?) takes offense at my "gang of skinheads wearing combat uniforms" remark. It was meant as a light-hearted interjection to make a point to Pete. The point was a serious one, the description was not. Rumiton (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Over-critical style

Reading over the article this morning, I see that my recent inclusion of criticism from given sources has pushed the article into negativity. When we get a summary of the Trust and how it operates, as well as some more on the charity side, I think we can get back to neutrality. Rumiton (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

JA Business ventures

As the current revision brings the past into "current practices", both from the reference and the information (the chain of health food shops has closed), let's give some more up-to-date references.

Barrett, The New Believers: "The Jesus Fellowship Community Trust owns around 60 New Creation Christian Community houses in the UK; it also owns a health food company and health food shops, building and plumbing companies, and a clothes shop. Members of the Church may continue to live in their own homes, but about a quarter -- some 700 -- live in communities. 'All members are on an equal footing, with no privileges or extra financial incentives being according to anyone, including any of the leaders...'[ref JF info sheet]"

My comment: It is the Community Trust, which legally holds the assetts of the Community for the benefit of the members, which owns the businesses. Retail health food now sold online rather than via High Street shops.

Hadden: "In addition to the approximately sixty communal residences that they own in England, they have created a number of successful business enterprises. These businesses provide training and employment for members, many of whom were previously unskilled and unemployed.

Newell in Charismatic Christianity (p.131): "JF decided to follow Paul's example of 'tent making', supporting their own ministries through their own work.... These businesses all grew during the 1980s and although there have been harder times during the recession of the 1990s, still employ over 250 members... Skaino, for example, now provides building, plumbing, painting, heating, vehicle repairs and gardening... Reflecting their egalitarian ideal, all community owned businesses are cooperatives and all are paid the same wage... "Besides Skaino Services and Towcester building Supplies, House of Goodness embraces farming, wholesale and retail wholefoods. As of 1996 there are two farms, the original at Nether Heyford and a later purchase near Rugby. The wholefoods business, Goodness Foods Wholesale, is based in a large warehouse in Daventry. In Northampton and Rugby there are outdoor wear shops which go by the name of White and Bishop. Medical, legal and architectural practices are run by members of the community, but not owned by the fellowship." [This last one is a long passage, and I have just gleaned the essence.]

John Campbell 15:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John. I will correct that tomorrow. It is the Community Trust, which legally holds the assetts of the Community for the benefit of the members, which owns the businesses. This rings a bell for me, I foresee polemics. Can you provide examples of ways the profits from the businesses benefit the members? Also would like to see some sources which tell us more about current outreach activities, as I think that needs expansion. Thanks. Rumiton 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"For the benefit of the members" was intended as a statement of legal purpose, rather than a polemical point. At the simplest level, in the event of a winding up, the assets of the Community Trust would be distributed to the members. Due to the legal structures, the Community Trust has to be managed in such a way as to protect the interests of the members by safeguarding the value of its investment (and allow, for example, refund of capital to leaving members). It also owns (for example) the houses and their contents, and the vehicles. Currently the profits from the businesses are reinvested to provide a sound business structure which can provide secure employment for around 250 members, donated to further the charitable work of the church or the Jesus Centres (of which more later). I'd tried to avoid writing like this before, but I'd have to hunt for neutral sources in this kind of detail, although Newell has a good section on this, and I don't know how much would really get into the article. John Campbell 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, out of time again tonight. See you tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed the BU/EA section to bring it into line with your suggestions and information. Hope it is acceptable. RE Businesses: Currently the profits from the businesses are reinvested to provide a sound business structure which can provide secure employment for around 250 members, donated to further the charitable work of the church or the Jesus Centres... I'm not clear on this. Does it mean that workers donate their wages? Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's refering to the 'profits' not workers wages. Althought workers to can make a charitable donation from their wages if they wish to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicpixie (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a bit misleading as employees of the JFC are members of the common purse and don't therefore have independent means, so that they are not free to decide to give to charity from their wages. Rumiton, I think some scrutiny/care should be given to use of the word charity, especially given John's earlier concession that the fellowship's supposedly charitable work is for the purposes of evangelism and not the relief of need, per se. The JFC has never, to my knowledge, supported any other charity other than its own, as a matter of principle.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, got it. We clearly need a neutral secondary source for this subject. Who is Newell? And have we got anything current on the outreach activities yet? Rumiton (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Members of the JA maybe but it's not just community members that work in the businesses or jesus centres. None community do exactly as they please with their wages, pay their bills for starters! None community members do not and never have paid their wages into a common purse.Of community members, they are still free to give a charitable donation from their wages as far as I know but I'll see if I check it out when I've time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicpixie (talk • contribs) 18:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Fair enough. I appreciate that non-community membership is a lot bigger these days. In my time only community members were employees. Can you confirm that charitable giving is limited to JA projects?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Can you confirm that charitable giving is limited to JA projects?" No, but I can confirm I've seen gifts made to other charities, not sure if I can find a neutral publish source for that but it doesn't lessen the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicpixie (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This point is getting convoluted -- it's not about what the employees may or may not do with their wages, it's about the profits of the businesses. Other points: Newell's biog is higher up the page in the Footnotes section. I'll give you some sources shortly, or possibly a link to them. Some are extensive -- is the best thing to do to open a sandbox on my talk page with them on it, for ease of access? Also, I am sure that Pete has quoted me wrongly about charitable relief of need, though I cannot find what he is referring to. More importantly, the comments about "supposedly charitable work" at the very least border on the libellous. I am Chair of Trustees of Jesus Army Charitable Trust, a UK Registered Charity. The clear implication of what Pete wrote is that its activities are in some way not charitable, which would mean that I am acting illegally and liable to imprisonment or an unlimited fine (true). That is no joke. John Campbell (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to Pete's statement "JA streetwork is about preaching to those in need and not about relieving their need, though that may prove a positive by-product if they join the fellowship." I said: "... fair comment about our streetwork if somewhat slanted. Our focus is on helping though a combination of spiritual and practical help, and not everyone will find that this is for them. It's not true though about the Jesus Centre activity which aims to help all, irrespective of their faith or lack of it." I'm not sure that I'd be so ready to agree with Pete again, though. John Campbell (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not sure that I'd be so ready to agree with Pete again, though." Either people do agree on the truth of something, or they don't. This sounds like a decision to withold agreement out of spite, even if you agree in principle. Perhaps my point needs clarification, but if John concedes that, "JA streetwork is about preaching to those in need and not about relieving their need, though that may prove a positive by-product if they join the fellowship." is fair comment, clarification ought not to be necessary.

As a for instance, a recent thread on the JAW forum concerned a person who had been sleeping on people's floors before he was contacted by the JA. Subsequently he moved into a JA house and, while working two jobs in town, contributed his entire income to the common purse for the better part of a year and participated fully in community life. When he decided to leave thjis summer, he was presented with a bill for over a thousand pounds for accommodation etc which he had received in the initial stage of his membership. I know that he felt aggrieved that what he might reasonably have imagined was relief of need (not to mention loving kindness) was actually a debt, which despite his total commitment to the common purse had never been repaid...or was held over him when he chose to leave.

You may fairly argue that nothing in life is free, that your work etc incurs costs etc, but I think that anyone contributing to your work, who associates it with relief of need etc, may be very surprised to read that love of this kind is not freely given and that new converts who you help incur a debt. They may also feel that there is something rather vindictive and cynical about presenting a leaver who leave penniless (because all his money is in the common purse) with a demand for repayment without delay.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a Reliable Source for this allegation? John Campbell (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't need one. I am not asking Rumiton to quote it in the article. I include it here by way of example, to explain the basis of my comment about relief of need and to convey the perhaps surprisingly unchristian things that can happen to people who come among you and later leave. You are well aware of the houshold with which I have recently been associated and can therefore check with the elder concerned, as to the veracity of the above. I know the young man personally, as he asked me to help him leave and stayed with me over the summer until he could get settled.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt is this is the place to make that kind of accusation in any case. John Campbell (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Having checked, the facts are quite different from the ones you present. The main in question was never in the common purse. He had his own bank account, into which his income went, and from which he paid his expenses. All he had to do was contribute £75 a week to cover his board and lodging as a "temporary guest". Over the time he was there, he paid about half of what he should have done, for a combination of reasons. When he left, he asked how much owed, and promised to pay it back when he was able. That was the reason a calculation was produced. John Campbell (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, given my close association with the leaver, I am bound to dispute your account, but I will concede that I can't prove it here. My friend is a decent and honourable young man and, to his credit, he has endeavoured to pay off what he owed and has expressed gratitude for the kindnesses received from his household and he would, I know, not wish to be dragged through a lawsuit. But if needs be he could attest to having told me the events as I have written them here. My understanding is that he asked what he owed because he felt guilty for leaving them so suddenly; certainly that was my impression when I collected him and talked to DG, who incidentally was very happy to accept that he had contacted me about leaving and not vice versa.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The facts as I have given them and checked with the household leader, the common purse treasurer and the audit overseer are correct. There is some misrepresentation going on here. John Campbell (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Charity and legal obligations

On the subject of Trust/charity and legal obligations, I wonder if John could confirm that the charity provides accomodation for elders of the church, who are the only members legally obliged to pay rent, which they do from the common purse, into which all members of the household have contributed?[1]

[interposing: no it does not. See here John Campbell (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)]

[responding to interposing: - to help Mr Campbell elaborate, he probably means, 'The Jesus Fellowship Community Trust is not a charity' - and i guess the leasing of the properties has changed in recent years as the previous situation caused problems with Housing Benefit claims. The Trust licenses the house to the Elders, the claimant and one other. Under the Trust's rules, only Elders can be licensees from the Trust. They in turn sub-license other church members, known as Covenant Members style 3, and some non-church members to live there. Each Covenant member and Elder must make payments into the common purse for their family's board and lodging costs. The Elders are responsible for making payments in respect of the residents' occupation to the Trust. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j406/civil_milton.htm --Mike Aldrich (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote Mike Aldrich, who has been a disinterested monitor of the JACT and JFC for many years: (quote)"Also the 'jesus fellowship life trust' charity #1107952 charity registration 'objects' include

4. To provide places of residence for elders and or other ministers of the church.

The 'jesus fellowship community trust' mentioned owns all the community assets apparently (buildings, houses, businesses etc) – but is a subsidiary/trading name, not a charity itself (it's not a registered company or charity in the UK under that name) – it rents out the community houses to the elders, who appear to be the only people who have an obligation to pay rent to the trust, as they are the legal tenants. The rent changes depending on the number of people in the community house, and is paid by the elders from their common purse!(end quote)

My understanding is that technically, while elders must pay rent, those in need should not, under 'jesus army charitable trust' charity # 1091912, Object 1.B, which says "The provision of housing or shelter for those in need, provided that this shall not extend to relieving any local authority or other bodies of a statutory duty to provide housing."

I was grateful for Mike Aldrich's insight when considering the matter of my friend who left the JA, only to be presented with a hefty bill for the charity he had received. Could it be constued that the less able to pay, for whom charitable provision is made in the objects of the trust, are subsidising the rent obligations of elders?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I object most strongly to this line, which is total misinformation and untrue. I have already responded to the main point (which is out of order in any case, as this is not a place for discussion of issues, but of the page) and Rumiton has called for this discussion to stop. Along with many other of the attacks that Pete has made on this talk page to pursue his personal vendetta which dates back to him leaving almost a quarter of a century ago, it only serves to confuse the article process. I could answer the attack, but that is not what we are here for. I would not be the only person to feel that Mike Aldrich is hardly a disinterested monitor either ('The author of this site claims it was "created from a neutral standpoint," but the content makes it clear that he has serious problems with the Jesus Army.' - Professor Hadden). —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Campbell (talk • contribs) 09:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What, because Hadden -yet again (who is plainly sympathetic to the JA) thinks something, it is so? Mike Aldrich can be considered a more neutral source than you or I, John, as he is neither a member nor an ex-member, nor has he, to the best of my knowledge, ever been involved in a dispute of any kind with the JA. If his archive includes a lot of articles critical of the JA, doesn't that just reflect the fact that the JA has long been controversial? Incidentally, his archive includes lots of articles that are pro-JA too....I think he just collates the lot.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike's inference seemed fair from the pretty transparent objects of the trust, but I am certainly no expert in this are, so I can't qualify his conclusions and will therefore let oit drop.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Covenant - life-long implications made clear

I wonder if it should not be made clear what exactly the JA mean by covenant, which is a life-long commitment? It may well not otherwise be apparent to wiki readers that the stress placed on people leaving being "backsliders", who must inevitably suffer some measure of God's judgement is due to the very serious stress placed on the Covenant promise made when someone joins. This is a covenant for LIFE, made before God.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pete, you have to stop doing this. This article can only say what sources have reported. There is NO POINT in raising controversial issues that reputable sources have not written about. Wikipedia is not a personal catharsis. Look for neutral sources the way John has and help the article progress. Don't keep raising your own issues. Rumiton (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Anyone who has not done so would probably benefit by spending a half hour looking at the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:NPOV WP:V WP:NOR (the three big ones), and WP:ATT and WP:CIVIL also. These guidelines are non-negotiable, especially where living persons are concerned, as is the case here. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept your general point, Rumiton, and will have a look, but I am not concious of starting a personal issue here. You keep using the word covenant in the article and I just think that as it is not typically in people's vocabulary, and particularly as it used in a very particular sense in the JA? I am sure if you want a source, John will provide one. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"In the Jesus Fellowship many have entered into a membership covenant, joining together as a committed brotherhood-church. This covenant, like those made between people in the Bible, is made before God and is viewed as being unbreakable. " http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library_hottopics12.shtml Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Pete. John, do you have a neutral secondary source that can tell us a bit more about the JF covenant? I glossed over the term a bit when I was reading about the different living and working arrangements. If the comment Pete has given above is unlikely to be challenged we can probably use it. Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. As it stands, I fear Pete is taking it out of context and then using it to support his claims about our views about backsliding and judgement, which it does not. The same source says: "We promise never to let one another down. We help one another through difficulties. We forgive and encourage one another. We fight together to save sinners with the gospel, sharing in sufferings and disappointments. We build strong brotherhood relationships and 'find' ourselves. This vow of covenant brotherhood is part of the strength of our church." and "The bond of covenant [is] A pledge of oneness and an intention of lifelong commitment to the Jesus Fellowship" [my emphasis] and "If someone who joins the Jesus Fellowship has already been baptised, their baptism is recognised and they are received as a covenant member in the same way as those who have just been baptised." and "Not all members enter covenant". John Campbell (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is pretty good, John. I will try to paraphrase it in a way that is acceptable. We can provide the ref and the full quote (which I personally find powerful and interesting) in the footnotes. Rumiton (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the quote comes from the JA itself, can it be considered a neutral source, Rumiton, especially as what you asked for was a neutral secondary source? Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The JA itself is the primary source. We need to find someone who has looked into the primary material and interpreted it for us. There are good reasons why this must be the case. Primary sources are generally not acceptable, but in cases where the statements they make are unlikely to be challenged, they can be. I think this is probably such an example. Rumiton (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like I got it wrong. All community members and many, but not all, of the "householders" will be "covenant members." Would that be correct? Rumiton (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct. the vast majority of new members join as "baptised members", that is without making covenant. later they may progress to covenant membership if they feel able to make that commitment. At any one time there will be a number of "temporary guests" living in community, some of whom will be testing out the lifestyle and their call -- say around 10% of the residents. They are not covenant members, either. John Campbell (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly things are a lot looser than they were. Rumiton, would it not help to have some clearer idea of the proportions involved? Most importantly, what proportion have felt a call to life-long covenant?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I see we already know this. I ought to read the updates more frequently. Sorry. If I understand rightly, there are 1800 in covenant, with 600 of them in community. That is a dramatic change of emphasis....away from community, though nonetheless with an intention to be committed for life to the fellowship.I am still not clear though about what proportion of the total congregation are not covenanted at all?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a further 1800 members of all sorts, not just covenant members. See Adherents.com. the figure on this page include Multiply Churches. John Campbell (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now I am really confused, but thanks. Aren't Multiply Churches, churches you have a relationship with? Multiply was formed to make links with other churches, wasn't it?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with doesn't have to mean covenant with —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicpixie (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I understand that, manicpixie, but John didn't say relationship with, he said 1800 members of all sorts. So I am asking whether you are counting members of other churches as members of the Jesus Fellowship?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The figures from Religious Trends (which are somewhat out of date) include UK churches in the Multiplky Network. If you look at the figures from Adherents.com, some of the quoted figures do, and some don't. So, for the purpose of clarifying the picture, here are the unpublished figures for the JA from the end of 2006:

Covenant members living in community: 439 (to which should be added children & temporary guests to make around 600 residents)

Other covenant members in fairly regular attendance 694 (say, more often than not at least once a week, or once a fortnight on average - this is a standard assessment used by the English Church Census)

Non covenant members in fairly regular attendance 406

Other less active members (both covenant and non-covenant) in irregular attendance: 949

The full attendance figure would have to also include children, temporary guests, friends, visitors, and other casual attenders (plus if appropriate, as above, Multiply churches).

I realise how difficult it is for me to recall precisely how the church was in 1984? when Pete left, and I guess it must be equally difficult for him to envisage how the church is now.

John Campbell (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for allowing the possibility that I am not just being difficult, John. It is, as you say, hard for me to grasp the present situation, because my impressions are very much out of date. I am a great deal clearer now. I am still confused about the Multiply Churches statistic though. My understanding from emails from Mike B and from DG is that Multiply was established to build bridges with other churches, so are Multiply Churches ones you have made connections with or are they member churches of the JFC?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiply Churches are the ones we have links with, and who look to the JF in some way. For the purposes of the UK CHurch Census, The Body Book, UK Christian Handbook etc, they are lumped together as JF/Multiply. And then there are the Multiply Churches overseas, which I haven't mentioned so far. Perhaps they deserve a mention, if only to avoid a UK-centric view of life. John Campbell (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If Multiply Churches are those you have links with I am not sure I understand why you include them in your membership statistics. I understand that because Multiply is your organisation, others have made a mistake of conflating the stats with JA membership ones, but as you are aware of the difference, it seems odd that you do the same. Do you see my problem? Would it be possible for you to subtract the Multiply numbers?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've not included them in the statistics I've provided here. What I wanted to do was to alert you to the fact that some of the figures quoted elsewhere include Multiply churches. I guess UK Christian Handbook do this for the same reason that they include associate churches with other streams. John Campbell (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John. That clears that up.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Fellowship Community Trust - some quotes

Jesus Army Charitable Trust - some more quotes

As i said before, we are short of academic reports on this, as the Jesus Centres are a recent development. They offer help and friendship to all, irrespective of their faith or lack of it.

From JACT website The Jesus Army Charitable Trust, established 2002, is a charity set up by the Jesus Fellowship Church to develop and enhance its existing work with many disadvantaged groups and individuals. It has adopted the following aims to fulfil its charitable objects:

Reducing the personal suffering associated with economic or social deprivation by meeting material, social and emotional needs on a 'holistic' basis without prejudice to any.

Building capacity on a non-prejudiced 'holistic' basis to help individuals to make significant progress in their lives including reduction of addictions and rehabilitation of offenders.

Promoting the advancement of the Christian religion by facilitating Jesus Fellowship activities and by provision of appropriate spiritual services.

Increasing social skills and cohesion through the provision of recreational and community facilities.

Operating as an effective and efficient charity, complementing and working constructively with other agencies and benefiting volunteers and staff by utilising and developing their skills and experience.

The Jesus Army Charitable Trust currently supports the running of Jesus Centres in Coventry and Northampton and is working towards a Jesus Centre in the West End of London, which is to open during 2007. The aim is to meet the needs of a broad range of people by means of a one-stop shop offering help and friendship at a grass-roots level. The Jesus Army Charitable Trust hopes to develop further ways of promoting their objectives in the future both through the Jesus Centres and by other means. Charity Registration No: 1091912

Charity Commission listing

Guidestar listing

Source : 26/06/2004 Northampton Chronicle and Echo JESUS CENTRE IS BACK ON TARGET … [John Campbell] added: 'We're not going to be imposing religion on people. We want the centre to be welcoming to people whatever their religious background.'

Source : 05/06/2002 Northampton Chronicle and Echo JESUS ARMY INVITES PUBLIC IN TO NEW HQ … Over the next year, the former Cannon cinema in Abington Square will become the biggest Jesus Army Centre in the country.

… Visitors were given a tour of the former cinema and were told how a £3 million overhaul will transform it into a massive worship and support centre for homeless, disadvantaged and lonely people.

… He said the centre would be staffed by Jesus Army volunteers offering help and support, particularly to the homeless.

'People can drop in and we will be able to help with the material provisions of food, drink and blankets,' he said.

'Long-term, the most important thing is to help people build relationships and friendships, especially with people who have been in their situation and understand what they are going through.'

The centre will also be used to hold worship, informal meetings and could be hired out to businesses, community groups and theatre companies.

Mr Campbell said: 'This centre will be open for anyone whatever their religious beliefs or lack of them.'

… The first landing will be home to a café, counselling rooms and information displays.

People will be able to train at the centre in literacy, where English is a second language, numeracy and IT.

'Back of house' will be turned into a practical area for homeless people including a medical room, wash and shower rooms, a laundry facility and a safe place for valuables.

BBC report, Friday, 31st May, 2002 - 15:45 BST Future of cinema unveiled … The Jesus Army bought the 1930s cinema for £1 million in 2000 with the intention of converting it into a worship centre.… Their plans include a 'one-stop shop for worship, friendship and care'. There will be facilities for homeless people, training rooms, conference space, a cafe and a worship centre. … John Campbell from the Jesus Army said: "The centre is going to be aimed at providing help for a wide range of people without any precondition. Anyone is welcome. The aim is not just to do things like showers and meals but to do the kind of training which people need: job applications, literacy, numeracy, money skills and so on."

Coventry Evening Telegraph - 2 February 2002 ALL ARE WELCOME AT CHURCH'S NEW CENTRE A cafe, public meeting hall and drop-in centre for the homeless are being incorporated into a new church centre taking shape in Coventry city centre. Members of Coventry's Jesus Army are sponsoring the £800,000 project which they hope will actively help everyone — whether they are down on their luck or simply want to find a central location to run aerobics classes. Piers Young, who will manage the multi-use centre, stresses it will be open to all, regardless of their beliefs. He said: "The Bridge will be a drop-in centre where the homeless, or anyone in need, will find a friendly welcome and facilities for washing, laundry and subsidised wholesome food. PARTIES "But the church centre will also include the Upper Well cafe and what we are calling The Gateway community hall, which will be a resource available for hire for everything from aerobics to children's parties and business seminars." In addition members of the Jesus Army will use the church centre as a place of worship. At the moment they are meeting in hired halls. Carole Rust, who will co-ordinate services at The Bridge, said: "We want to actively help people in need to improve their quality of life, not just provide a 'parking space' for them. "We will be open six mornings a week, including weekends, and hope that, by means of training and advice, people of all faiths will be helped to enhance their skills and capacity to live fuller lives."

Coventry Evening Telegraph - 29 April 2002 DROP-IN CENTRE SET TO OPEN £800,000 project helps homeless

A drop-in centre for the homeless will open in Coventry city centre tomorrow. The Bridge, part of the new Coventry Jesus Centre, in Lamb Street, is being sponsored by members of Coventry's Jesus Army. The £800,000 project will incorporate a public meeting hall, an IT centre and a chapel. A public cafe is set to open in the building's foyer in June. The Bridge will cater for anyone in need, especially the homeless and vulnerably housed. FRIENDSHIP Food, a shower, laundry facilities, advice and friendship will be available and the centre will be open to all, regardless of beliefs. Piers Young, who will manage the centre, said: 'The Bridge will be a place where the homeless or anyone in need, will find a friendly welcome and facilities for washing, laundry and subsidised food. "It's meeting a need in the provision for these kind of services in the city— we're aiming to help people stand on their own feet and to develop their own capacity. "We are calling it the Bridge because it is both a bridge to other resources and agencies and a bridge to a more complete life. "People will be able to use the internet to access employment information and we want to encourage that. 'They will also have their own e-mail address and be able to use the Bridge as a postal address. It will be open from 9am to 12pm from Tuesday to Saturday, between 9am and 10.30am on Sundays and between 7pm and 9pm on Wednesdays and Fridays. Churches and individuals can buy food vouchers from the centre, to give to people in need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Campbell (talk • contribs) 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please review article now

Would all involved care to look over the article and comment on neutrality and factuality? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, I have to say you have done a pretty amazing job, when I think how you came to this subject with no previous experience of it....and when I realise that I haven't made it at all easy for you. I do have a few niggles, which I hope can be addressed, but on the whole I hope John (and others)feel as I do that we are very nearly there.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm running short of time, but I'll do that shortly. I want to do justice to the hard work you've done on this. In addition, I have a new book I've just received and a number of points I'd been looking at in response to earlier requests. John Campbell (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you Pete, and John, no hurry. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Covenant membership - some quotes

Hunt, Steven J. ‘The Radical Kingdom of the Jesus Fellowship’ [p35]: The idea of covenant as a distinctive form of commitment can be found in many forms of charismatic community. It might best be described as a formal commitment sealed by a vow to indicate dedication to the community and an oath to participate in a distinct lifestyle and mission. The Jesus Fellowship places considerable stress on the covenant bond. Covenant comes in various forms: either to communal life or to one of tht other forms of membership, and, if chosen, to celibacy..

Baptism for the convert is followed by the option of making covenant – a choice also open to those Christians of long standing in the faith. Many prefer, at first, to consider this option after nominal membership…

Chryssides [p155] The Jesus Fellowship Church offers the seeker a variety of levels of commitment. The loosest form of membership is that of the ‘cultural disciple’: these are people who are otherwise unchurched, but who come along occasionally. Some of them may still be on drugs or alcohol, having not yet renounced their old lifestyle. …

Newell [p.125] JF places strong emphasis on the covenant bond. Converts are baptized if not already baptized as believers, and then there is the option of making covent. Many don’t at this stage, wanting time to consider the implications of this level of membership… In fact most new members are now not community-based – they live in their own accommodation and participate in congregational or house-based meetings.

[drawing from his experience of other communities] Other leaders of Charismatic communities have compared the kind of commitment needed to maintain this covenant bond as on a par with marriage. In theory at least, the love and involvement with one another is of such strength and depth that it leads to a similar undertaking as a marriage. Where there is affection and fulfillment this kind of vow can provide stability and security and removes the transience known in other Chrismatic fellowships. Where these are absent, persuasion into covenant can be a straightjacket that stifles individual freedom. If legalism – a code of rules that lead to strictures over failure – creeps in, members will sooner or later want to leave.

Making covenant signifies commitment to one another in maintaining and extending the fellowship. The intention is that it is for life, though JF is aware that people can change their responses as they grow older and accommodates to this...

... As their circumstances change, members often change their style of membership rather than leave outright.

John Campbell (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(moved from wrong section)::Not having kept abreast of anything to do with the JA for many years, I don't have the wealth of books on the JFC that they do themselves, so I am grateful that John has made quotes available, though in an ideal world I'd have liked to be able to obtain some of them, me culpa, to read the rest of what they say. The above references are a useful insight into the level of commitment that covenant implies. Rumiton, I fully accept that without reliable sources you must leave aside any concern I have about covenant breaking, but surely there is no reason to include reference to the fact that the JA say themselves that the vow is considered unbreakable and that the "intention" is that it should therefore be life-long? All the above make this clear.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Appreciating that, I have tried to present sufficient chunks from the books to present them fairly, rather than support my particular views. Where I have omited chunks, it is because they are detailed sociology or theology, or duplicated what is said elsewhere. Returning to covenant, as Newell above indicates, one has to distinguish between the "myth" and the practice. The "myth" (or spiritual story) is that covenant is unbreakable, or at least sufficiently serious that you intend to make a lifelong commitment. Consequent to that the support and concern is intended to be always there. The practice however is that people may change their membership style, leave, or just drop out in some way and we have attempted to accommodate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Campbell (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I appreciate the detail you have provided, so thanks. As regards the myth, as you put it, I suppose the problem is that while the practice of leaving or changing from a more committed reationship in the church to a less committed one is frowned on and referred to backsliding etc (let's not quibble, please, we both know this is true), "myth" or as you say it, the spiritual story is the one that dominates. I mean, no church which puts such a great emphasis on righteousness, purity etc will make a member aware when they commit that 'unbreakable' (the JA word) is a moveable feast, especially when much of the vocab of the church is designed to make leaving a loathsome (if not frightening) business:

"The community has a special song in its hymnal about Demas, an early Christian who worked with Paul but then backslid: 'Demas fell from highest grace and shrank back from the pilgrim race', runs the hymn and it urges believers to 'shatter all complacency and shun alike apostasy'." Buzz, 1986. It is the spiritual story which has the upper hand in the JA.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That was of course 21 years ago, and we've moved on a long way since then. "My own view is that in more recent times the atmosphere is much more relaxed and members can disengage relatively easily." (Scotland, Charismatics and the new Millenium, p.113) "After criticisms of what were seen as cultic aspects of the Jesus Fellowship in the mid-1980s, deliberate attempts were made to widen and loosen the organization." (Kay in Encylopedia of New Religions, p.90) John Campbell (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Celibacy again again

This is about celibacy again - sorry I think it is in the wrong place but am doing my best ! "In fundamentalist christian NRMs such as the London Church of Christ, marriages are not usually formally arranged but often rely on the advice and consent of the pastor, and divorce is forbidden. The Jesus Army is more extreme, percieving marriage as the "lower way" to celibacy, which is promoted in Celibate Cutting Edge ,their "inspirational bulletin of celibacy". In this respect the movement may be percieved as a militant version of the men's movement in which the men give up being "feminised" and don combat gear as warriors for Jesus, also displaying misogynistic values" Puttick,E,p.153in New Religious Movements ed. Wilson,B and Cresswell,J(1999),Routledge, London. (The emphasis of the church may have changed - why and how and what was done for those who took a vow 20 years ago thinking they were following a higher way only to be told now that god had changed his mind ? I don't really expect this to be answered as I don't think it is the place for it, but it is human details like this that the church forgtes about as it "advances the Kingdom")--Moonwalkers (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for fine tweaking

This is not the article I would have written, but then neither is it the article Pete would have written! All in all, it is coming out surprisingly balanced and sane. I've attempted to comment as neutrally as possible, having full regard to the sources we are using.

I agree with John, very largely, though I am rather alarmed by the number of suggested changes.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Orthodoxy"

Earlier Rumiton suggested that the sources did not support the view that the Jesus Army was "orthodox": 'I don't think this article will end up calling the JA "orthodox." The sources do not say that at all.'

OK, then this is what the sources do say, already quoted on this page:

Chryssides "The case of the Jesus Army is an interesting one, for it has never added to scripture or appeared to give undue veneration to its founder-leader, while its morality is very conservative and its theological position thoroughly orthodox. It is the sheer zeal of the movement that its critics find disturbing."

"... the group is thoroughly orthodox, professing allegiance to Christianity's historic creeds; it neither seeks to add to scripture nor claims new present-day prophets, although, in common with many mainstream Christians, it believes in continuing revelation through the Holy Spirit's inspiration."

Hunt, Steven J. ‘The Radical Kingdom of the Jesus Fellowship’, quoting Buzz magazine, 1986

"'Theologically they seem as sound as a bell… No other group of Christians has been the brunt of so much criticism, lies, scandal, accusations and suspicion as the Jesus Fellowship. ... there are numerous Christians from house fellowships and other denominations who have gained a very favourable impression of the Jesus People.'"

Kay in Encyclopedia of New Religions

"It is now again a member of the Evangelical Alliance and has good relationships with a wide range of evangelical and charismatic groups and networks."

Unconventional maybe, unorthodox, no

John Campbell (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am hoisted once more by the petard of my ecclesiastical ignorance. I meant unorthodox only as relates to their MO, in the exact sense of unconventional. All sources appear to agree that their spiritual beliefs are orthodox Christian. Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As someone with recent experience of the JA I find their desperation to be seen as orthodox bizarre. Their unorthodox nature is a major feature of their corpoate identity. "The organiation of the Jesus Fellowship with regard to authority and orders, shepherding and pastoring would not be recognised as any form of priesthood in the older Christian traditions, not sufficiently rooted in the will of the people and congregation for the reformed tradition." Slee,C p167 New Religious Movements (1999)ed.Wilson,B Cresswell,J. Routeledge, London.

As one of the aspects defining an orthodox church is that they teach doctrine/truth - "When I visited the Jesus Fellowship I asked what commentaies and scholarship Noel Stanton uses in his biblical teaching. I was told with pride that there are probably not more than half a dozen biblical commentaries in the entire community and that Noel's interpretation was divinely inspired so it as unnecessary to grapple with scholarship which was in any event liable to mislead..........The study of scripture is a sine qua non of religious observance.....I suggest that NRMs approach Christian Scripture with a predetermined perspective and set out to show how sriptures illuminate that teaching." Slee, p.175 New Religious Movements ed,etc as above--Moonwalkers (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking up the quoted passage, I find that Slee also applies the same strictures to university [evangelical] Christian Unions, and states that he sees no difference between the effects of Scientologists and those of members of Christian Unions. p.174,175 John Campbell (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you're making - effects of what on who ?--Moonwalkers (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is simply that Slee lumps evangelicals and NRMs together as those who do not use the bible correctly, as described in the quote above. In the terms we are discussing, evangelical Christians would be seen as "orthodox", even if Slee disagrees profoundly with their stance. I can also say that I well remember talking to him when he visited us, but I cannot recollect the conversation having the emphasis he describes. Ah well. John Campbell (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaks -- Intro (agreed)

First illustration caption. This originally referred to the camouflage pattern, which I felt tied in helpfully with the “army” identity. It said “The multi-coloured camouflage jacket”...

No problem. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Postpositions

John, you wrote: This is not the article I would have written, but then neither is it the article Pete would have written! (I can't resist this... BUT IS IT AN ARTICLE UP WITH WHICH YOU BOTH CAN PUT?) I'll look at the tweaklets later this evening. Rumiton (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I am probably closer to putting up with it than John is, if the many tweaks are anything to go by, and I have to say that I rather resent the attempt to re-write so much at this late stage, which could tie us up in knots. With all these different issues vying for consideration, I hope that the sense of focus achieved so far will not be lost and concessions and agreements to date will not be forgotten.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope not too. What we are looking at is fine tuning, the final stages of editing, which in my experience is quite normal. John Campbell (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to answer your question, which I took as a jest: Yes I could put up with it as it stands, though I think we can improve it significantly by this final run through. John Campbell (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John. I agree. Stability has to be our goal. Will look again tonight. Rumiton (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop- I am a bear with a very small brain -

Can we please deal with each re-write issue separately - in its own section? I can't cope with this forest of issues thrown together! I am worried about clarity being lost and old concessions being forgotten. (will be back later. Pagan Festival shopping now!)Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What I've done is divided the tweaks section up according to the sections on the main page. I hope that will help us make progress in these final stages. John Campbell (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Let's really bring an end to this as soon as possible.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey K. Hadden

As you've brought up Prof Hadden, and included a partial reference regarding me!, in one of his last emails to me before he died he wrote 'Finally, I'm delighted to learn that you have elected to remove the stigma of anonymity from your page. Please let me know when you do that and I will change the comment on my page ... ' - I guess you'll already have a copy of that one John, as you did with his earlier communications to me. - Rumiton, could we consider removing the link to Hadden's website, due to questionable reliability, as referred to on Jeffrey_K._Hadden --Mike Aldrich (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you brought it up before me, Mike, as I have been worrying for a couple of days over whether I dare raise this one. I didn't know about Hadden, so I imagine that many other readers will be as in the dark as I was, but apparently he was not in entirely good odour, given his reputation for receiving funds from various cults in return for his expert opinion: He was a paid expert witness for the Church of Scientology, for instance and a number of papers were written pointing out the ethical concerns over academics (Hadden and others with whom he was associated) being seen to collaborate with cults and receive research funding etc from them. Charlotte Allen in "Brainwashed! Scholars of Cults Accuse Each Other of Bad Faith" mentions Hadden among other NRM scholars who admitted to have received funding by NRMs[[2]] See also, Rutgers Professor of Sociology Benjamin Zablocki [3]. Collusion between Hadden and New religious Movements was asserted by Psychology professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi when he referred in "Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research" to a confidential memorandum which he had received himself , dated December 20, 1989. I am not suggesting that Hadden received anything at all from the JA but his ethics, neutrality and verifiability must surely be in question....and would undoubtedly be challenged if he were to be quoted or cited, or his website (currently in the external links) included.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I wasn't aware of your email from Prof. Hadden, but I'm glad to hear of it. As for Hadden's reliability, my own view is that it's difficult for us to decide that. It is a University of Virginia web page, and if the University is satisfied with its credibility, then they will continue to publish it. Mike's page, by contrast, is his own self-published site, and its admissability may be somewhat shaky. Rumiton? John Campbell (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the other quoted religious researchers, Partridge, Hunt, Barret and Chryssides, from other articles, and know they are very well respected. I did not know of Hadden, but looking him up I see he taught at the University, as John says, and that a lot of his studies were done by students as part of a course. On the other hand, he was involved in some controversy and accused of bias or even dishonesty. It is significant that the University of Virginia stood by him throughout. It is a case where his opinion is probably perfectly usable for less contentious issues, but if he makes any extraordinary claims we would need other sources for back-up. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the link mentioned, while not being exactly an extraordinary claimer, Hadden does write quite promotionally about the subject. Bearing in mind the nature of the controversy surrounding him, I don't think we would be doing the article's future stability any favours by leaving it there. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I may have given Professor Hadden a cup of tea when he visited. I don't really see his article as promotional, but helpfully informative. I suspect the Wikipedia entry may be unbalanced and unfair to him, given that there is no attempt to give his side of the story. However I don't know the full tale. John Campbell (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, Rumiton, about stability, but this guy is not a nobody. Just looking him up on Wikipedia, I find that he is cited or quoted in

Anson Shupe, Anti-cult movement, Brainwashing, Cult, Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture, Douglas E. Cowan, David C. Lane, Heaven's Gate (religious group), J. Gordon Melton, List of new religious movements, List of people who have been considered deities, List of Prem Rawat-related topics, Mind control, Opposition to cults and new religious movements, Political theology, Prem Rawat, Rick Ross (consultant), Sacred Journeys (book), The Way International, UFO religion, Victor Paul Wierwille and referred to in APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control, CESNUR, Cult apologist, List of sociologists, Propaganda.

John Campbell (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, not a nobody, but the controversies that surround him could make including him problematic. I am thinking particularly of his blythe and unencyclopedic references to experiences of the Holy Spirit. Things like that are a red flag to the bulls of opposition. I don't think the article needs him. Let's try it without him. Rumiton (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rumiton. I am sure it will be far more stable that wayBristol Sycamore (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In view of the desire for stability, I agree. John Campbell (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, John.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures (active)

John, while we are considering general matters, do you have any more images we can add? The top one showing the chap talking to the young people is great -- clear, interesting and illustrative. The bus pic shows too little detail and cannot apparently be expanded. Is there an available photo of Pastor Stanton speaking, for example? Rumiton (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC) By the way, thank you for the even-handedness with which you chose the references. I hope the article can show both the eagerness and ardour of the movement's beginnings and what clearly seems to be a strongly developing maturity and usefulness. (Shoot, there goes my neutrality.) Rumiton (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can look out at larger size. John Campbell (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I find myself in some difficulty here, as pictures in Wikipedia have to be released on a totally free licence, including freedom for derivative (and derogatory) works, which limits what I am prepared to submit. Additionally, we need to be sure that they are not seen as promotional. I have looked out a number of pictures, which I have placed on our website. Which if any of them do you feel are suitable? I can upload two or three of these to Wikipedia and release them on a free licence.

Night time evangelism in London

Friendship evangelism in Camden

Worship in Giant Marquee

Open-air baptism

JA march and coach

JA march in London

Northampton Jesus Centre by night

Northampton Jesus Centre by day

John Campbell (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaks -- BU and EA (agreed)

The allegedly authoritarian role of the JA leader I would just suggest: "of the JA leadership" [may be as true or truer. Pete?]

This is a tricky one, John. I dare say leadership would be more appropriate now, but originally I recall that the allegation referred to Noel's overall control of the community and his role as the source of all teaching and praxis in the church, when the allegation was made. I am not sure that you can change the allegation rhetrospectively.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I probably had other allegations in mind, along the lines that it was the elders who were out of control, and which I thought you might have said on these pages somewhere. Your call I think. John Campbell (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that in the early days Mr Stanton was pretty much the man. "Leader" seems appropriate. Have I misunderstood? Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. John Campbell (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

the JA attitude towards celibacy (expected of unmarried members) I suggest: "the JA attitude towards celibacy (actively encouraged for unmarried members)" or "The strong emphasis on celibacy (actively encouraged for unmarried members)" See Scotland, Charismatics and the New Millennium: [P25] "The New [Creation] Christian Community has a large number of celibates and strong emphasis is placed on celibacy." "[p113] celibacy is actively encouraged"

Again, I think you want to change the allegation in light of more recent innovations. I'm afraid I don't think Rumiton has yet addressed this. Critics and the concerned others (in the time before the EA expulsion) were Christians, in the main, and therefore had no issue about sexual abstenance, as such. The allegation at the time was that Covenanted Celibacy was taught as a higher way and that all unmarried members were under pressure to renounce hopes of marriage and take the status. Before a man could even be considered marriage material he had first to convince his elder that he had renounced all hopes of it. This was part of the Catch 22 which meant that many gave up hope of being allowed to marry.....and could account for the take-up rate (certainly, I knew men for whom this was the case). If you aren't going to be allowed to marry and if celibacy has higher status, you might just as well accept the inevitable and be well regarded into the bargain.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right in that the quotes I pasted here are later in date than the time to which we are referring. However, I have to say (as one who got married in the fellowship in 1980) that I don't think your description is right, and must be coloured by other issues. The very existence of a "relating procedure" means that your take on it can't be the case. What we need is a contemporaneous NPOV source to expand on this, which I can't find. John Campbell (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The existence of a relating procedure only goes to show the extent to which relationships are controlled, and the comparison of numbers of marrieds and celibates shows the extent to which the procedure limits rather than promotes marriage. It was our contention when we talked to Clive Calver at the EA that in 1985/6 that the procedure had frustrated the efforts of some to marry, who then felt obliged to become celibate. I do have to say that John Everett's knowledge of this (as a former elder and somewhat older than me) was superior to mine. He and the former farm manager had experience of the procedure frustrating the desire to marry.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How about we change "attitude towards" to "emphasis on"? Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You could change the whole phrase "attitude towards celibacy (expected of unmarried members)" to "emphasis on celibacy" quite fairly and non controversially IMHO. John Campbell (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that anyone is entitled to change the nature of the allegation which was current at the time, which was never the emphasis on celibacy, per se, but on the pressure to take the celibate covenant. I appreciate that you would want some control over the wording of the allegation, but I really think that is hardly your prerogative. It was a controversy back then, so wording which is non-controversial now would be oxymoronicBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "the alleged pressure to commit to life-long celibacy" or, "the alleged pressure to renounce any desire to marry"? - We are after all talking about matters which gave the impression of culthood...and NOT practices which currently exist, following the revision of policies.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that and I'm not trying to be funny, but I think your recollection may be faulty here. As I said above, what we need is a contemporaneous NPOV source to expand on this, which I can't find. Even Buzz would do by my reckoning. As one who got married during the period in question I really don't think "expected of unmarried members" will do. John Campbell (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My problem as I see it now is that the sentence as structured refers to the things which made the Jesus Fellowship open to charges of "culthood", not the allegations per se. How about "strong emphasis on celibacy"? Reference: "The community stresses the value of celibacy" Evangelism Today June 1986.

An alternative is to restructure it as 'Allegations of the authoritarian role of the JA leader and that celibacy was expected of unmarried members, coupled with corporal punishment of children (rodding), and the fact that community members were required to hand over their material possessions made them liable to accusations of "culthood."' But that doesn't read right and may not be acceptable in any case. Perhaps I need to sleep on it. John Campbell (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I am ever going to be happy with an alternative which seems designed to hide the true nature of our concerns in the old days. I must reiterate that nobody, to the best of my recollection, cared two hoots about sexual abstenance. We were Christians and that was a given. Our objection was to the pressure to make a covenant which would mean we could never have relationships/ wives. When quotes from good sources support that, I am at a loss to know why that bit hasn't been amended to reflect the facts as verified. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"My problem as I see it now is that the sentence as structured refers to the things which made the Jesus Fellowship open to charges of "culthood", not the allegations per se"(Quote -John Campbell). I am not sure that is quite true, as it includes "alleged" when referring to Noel's authority, but I agree that your wording may be better. However, as I have said in several places now, it does not really reflect the real concerns of the time. As your current beliefs' and practices' sections make it clear that controversial policies were toned down or changed after this period anyway, how about:

"Allegations that the JA had too authoritarian a style of leadership and that members were under pressure to commit to life-long celibacy, together with the fact that corporal punishment of children (rodding) was practised and that community members were required to hand over their material possessions, left them vulnerable to the accusation that they were a cult."

This compromise would accommodate your wish to broaden the implied leadership responsibilityBristol Sycamore (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As I managed to read the proposed change without choking on my Rice Krispies, it must be OK. It seems factual enough, and unless Rumiton thinks that either it is unstable or ruled out because of some Wikilaw, let's go with it. John Campbell (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good guys. Well done. Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much John. Thanks RumitonBristol Sycamore (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaks -- References (3) (agreed)

the following two books contain substantial chapters on the Jesus Army. Hunt is footnoted, but not in the list of references. We have used a short article by Kay as a source, but this is a new book. I think they should both be included in References.

Hunt, Stephen J. ‘The Radical Kingdom of the Jesus Fellowship’ in Pneuma, The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol 20, Number 1, Spring 1998 (Hagerstown, Maryland, USA) Pp.21-41

Kay, William K., Apostolic Networks in Britain: New Ways of Being Church, Paternoster, Milton Keynes 2007

John Campbell (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaks -- References (agreed)

I have no direct knowledge of the first Barker reference ("Of gods and men") but suspect it has no relevance to the article. Her contribution in the book is her famous paper about "The Ones who Got Away" and concerns people who leave the the Unification Church (Moonies), although she has also written a preface to the book. You can check the contents on page vii of Google books preview. John Campbell (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Out she goes. Rumiton (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaks -- References (2) (agreed)

I think that Keishin Inaba, Altruism in New Religious Movements may be too specialised abstruse and may be best dropped. I know the book and it's a rework of a postdoctoral thesis. For the avoidance of doubt, it is neutral-to-positive on the subject, so be assured that I am not burying bad news. John Campbell (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Rumiton (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaks -- Current practices (agreed)

Their intense style and all-engulfing requirement of commitment have led to allegations of abuse from disillusioned former members...

The reference says: "… Not surprisingly, the Fellowship’s intense style and all-engulfing requirement of commitment lead to occasional allegations of abuse from disillusioned former members." (Wright, Nigel in Charismatic Christianity p.66) I think missing out the word occasional here rather distorts what the quote says. You could reintroduce “occasional” or add “some” before “disillusioned”

I think the word occasional is redundant, but by all means, if the inclusion in the article is verified by no other source (?) I have no issue with the word being put back (not sure why it was left out anyway). However, if we are worried about distorting a quote, surely adding words which were never there in the first place ("some") is equally suspect?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Occasional" to me is meaningless. I think "some" is a reasonable modifier, and not Original Research. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In Buzz, 1986 the JA spokesman says that 100 members have left since 1979 (when formal records began), all but 20 are in friend;y contact, 3 are antagonistic. Some is non-contentious, I think. John Campbell (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Since he was the spokesman, I don't think he can be regarded as any more neutral than you or me, John, so shouldn't a neutral source be provided to verify a claim like this before it is given too much credence? Particularly since I was personally one of numerous ex-members (13 I can think of straight off, who were antagonistic) then talking to the press/ or helping leavers (won't mention names, but let's identify them thus: myself and John E are a given, then there was the ex-farm manager, the former manager from Goddness foods and the sister he married, the sister and her boyfriend with a toddler (from Minehead), the former elder in Birmingham, the homosexual from Northampton, the two "sisters" (one of them Australian) who left together, the bearded graphic designer, - I make that 13 antagonistic people, an I know I am not done yetBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In that period? I accept its a given that he is not neutral, and I would probably find it hard to give full credance to his claim. As long as we are happy with "some"! John Campbell (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can accept some.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

...as well as hostility from more conventional churchgoers I’m not sure where the phrase "hostility from more conventional churchgoers" originates.

Chryssides [summing up, p162]: “the Jesus Army certainly presents a form of the Christian faith which mainstream Christians are bound to find disconcerting.”

Hunt, Steven J. ‘The Radical Kingdom of the Jesus Fellowship’:

[introducing the topic, p.22]: “the NCCC has been a source of inspiration and frequently attracts visitors from Europe and beyond who wish to observe, and sometimes imitate, a vibrant and enduring model of charismatic community life...”

[p.26] ~~Quoting Buzz, 1986: "there are numerous Christians from house fellowships and other denominations who have gained a very favourable impression of the Jesus People."~~

[p.27]"The latest stage of the fellowship’s growth since 1987 [to 1998] has been marked by two key developments. In that year the Jesus Army was formed as the evangelical [should be “evangelistic”] wing of the Jesus Fellowship... The second development was the greater openness to other churches and the entry of the Jesus Fellowship into the charismatic mainstream... prominent leaders of practically all the strands of the British charismatic and Pentecostal scene have spoken at the large public meetings of the Jesus fellowship, and are frequent contributors to its major publications “Jesus Life-style” and the “Jesus Revolution Street Paper”."

["future prospects", p41]: "To some in the broader movement, the Jesus Fellowship will always be something of an enigma, tending towards exclusiveness and displaying a sectarianism incongruent with contemporary Pentecostalism. To others, the Jesus Fellowship will continue to epitomize the fullest expression of Christian and Pentecostal life."

[Edited to clarify the sources John Campbell (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)]

So "disconcerts some more conventional churchgoers" or "is an enigma to some more conventional churchgoers" is closer to the sources.

I think when other churches threatened to resign from the Alliance if the JA was retained, "hostility" is not too strong a word. But I take your point. I shall try to come up with something that covers the spectrum of responses that the sources report. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this paragraph is referring to "current practices", isn't it? In which case, justification from 1986 is a bit threadbare (although I did). We need to look at up to date sources. I have edited the section above to clarify what is relevant to the current situation. John Campbell (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure it is referring to current practices, is it? Forgive me if I have got lost....this is becoming a bit of a forest of different issues....but isn't the section about the EA/BU controversy? Current practices are not the ones which were then thought cultic.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The phrase in question comes in a section headed "Current Practices". John Campbell (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As my bear with a small brain section attests, I was getting confused. I am sorry, stand corrected.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the attitudes of other churchgoers, we cannot use (promotional) primary sources (Buzz Magazine etc) as this is definitely a controversial topic. We have Hunt saying they are "bound to be disconcerted," and other sources telling of the threatened boycott from the Alliance. Do we have anything else? Rumiton (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, the Chryssides quote and the Hunt quote are getting mixed up, one at the beginning, one at the end of the sentence. Who said what? Rumiton (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the quotes in the section above to clarify what sources are relevant to the current situation. John Campbell (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[moved for clarity John Campbell (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)]

I shifted the "hostility" sentence back to the past history section. Is that OK? Rumiton (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I can cope with "hostility" being there. John Campbell (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnBristol Sycamore (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mention might also be made here of Northampton and London Jesus Centres.

Why? This isn't an advert for the church. There are doubtless thousands of things that could be mentioned, but is it the purpose of the article to promote the JA?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because it specifically mentions Coventry Jesus Centre. John Campbell (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How many Jesus Centres are there altogether? Rumiton (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently Coventry & Northampton, with London due to open Easter 2008. John Campbell (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A second Jesus Centre opened in Northampton in 2004, with others to follow. ? John Campbell (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaks -- Current practices

In 2007, there are an estimated 1100 such members I have a little difficulty here. I flagged the figures I provided on the talk page as unpublished and for the purpose of clarification. I suspect they may count as [WP:OR]. In any case, the figure would be 2049, not 1100. I believe the latest published figures anywhere speak of 600 in community and another 1800. Not quite accurate, but not far off.

I found it rather confusing. I don't think you can give significance to guests and children. The figures I ended up with were:

Covenant members in the community 439 Other covenant members 694, a total of about 1100. Non covenant memnbers 406 "Less active" what does that mean? Maybe they have left? We need a 2ndary source for this. Do we have one? Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is normal to refer in such circumstances to 'adherents' to give a level playing field when comparing religions/denominations/churches with infant membership (like Roman Catholics for example). Secondary sources: adherents.com, referencing Chryssides p.367 at 2600 for the total membership in 1999. "Less active means 'they see us as their church' and are in contact. A bit more than nominal. Attendance means just that, counting the number of different people who come over a two week period, again a standard measure used in the UK Church census. Coincidentally, our attendance is around the same as our membership. The number of children and casual visitors balances out the members who don't show up. However, as mentioned earlier, the figures of attendance from Religious Trends include Multiply members.

Barret; p.227 "The Jesus Fellowship now numbers about 2,500 members... about a quarter -- some 700 -- live in communities."

The up-to-date primary figures are on our site. John Campbell (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I should probably say that similar figures to Barrett's are to be found in a number of other secondary sources. John Campbell (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The 1100 figure remains, which I think is wrong. It needs to be 1800 to agree with the Source. John Campbell (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Rumiton (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is actually 1800 adults. :-) John Campbell (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Though the emphasis throughout these activities is evangelistic, “bringing people to Jesus” As quoted elsewhere, our professed aim in the Jesus Centres is to offer help to all, irrespective of their faith or lack of it. "one aspect" might be OK instead of "the emphasis", though that's not quite right.

How new is that aim? Has it not been made pretty clear in the past that saving souls was the first priority? Rumiton (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This applies to the help, friendship and social action of the Jesus Centres, the first one of which opened in 2002. They also do have an evangelistic aspect, to confuse matters. John Campbell (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So what word would be better than "emphasis?" Rumiton (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In 2002 the Jesus Fellowship opened the Coventry Jesus Centre including a Drop-In Centre known as "The Bridge", which provides services such as a 70p breakfast, free clothing, showers and hot drinks, as well as social support, job training and medical help to vulnerable people. The Centre also assists in finding rented accommodation for the homeless, though a major aspect of these activities is evangelistic, "bringing people to Jesus". John Campbell (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaks -- Beliefs (agreed)

The Jesus Fellowship claims to uphold the creeds of the Christian faith We have already agreed that “claims” is not a Wiki word. I suggest: The Jesus Fellowship subscribes to the historic creeds… (also changing the link to a more informative one)

I think that is fair enough. My problem is not with the foundational theology of the church, but with systems of belief which have been added on, like Two Kingdom Theology and the other matters we are not permitted to have mentioned, like the fear of judgement for covenant breakers etc, which I know not to be at all orthodox.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. But does one "subscribe" to a creed? Forgive my ignorance, but it sounds like getting a magazine home delivered. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

'Subscribe' was a word I found on another web site when researching historic creeds just now. 'Accepts' is another possibility. John Campbell (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless we are worried about the clumsiness os tautology, what's wrong with "believe"? After all creed comes from Credo (L), "I believe"? Alternatively, how about "attest to"?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

'Accepts' is the word used on ecumenical creeds. John Campbell (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an area for some good old-fashioned pedantry. As a creed is a statement that starts "I believe..." (or "we believe"), from the Latin Credo, it is not merely tautological but incorrect to say someone believes a creed. It is tantamount to saying (for example) "I believe I believe in God." "Subscribes to" in this sense means "adds one's name to", as in signing at the bottom, so it becomes "I believe in God, Signed John Campbell". Hence the use of the word. "Accepts" is self-conciously weaker and can be used to imply just a general acceptance. "Upholds" is the word we have always used. Which would you like to use? John Campbell (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice pedantry, John. Well done! Bearing in mind the way a tiro like me stumbled over "subscribe" maybe "upholds" is best. Rumiton (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the best Wikilink for this is to Ecumenical creeds rather than creeds, and I would prefer the link text to be "historic creeds", an alternative name for the ecumenical creeds. John Campbell (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Rumiton (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And that single members have been pressurized into the vow. Current members deny this.

Newell (who you quote) says “I have not myself seen any evidence of this.“. He was never a member of the JA, so it's not just current members who deny it.

The fact that one academic hasn't seen something does not mean either that the allegation wasn't made or that it is proved not to have been the case. It should be sufficient to say that current members deny that it is the case, especially if the academic is making a passing comment and celibacy policy in the JA was not the aspect of life in the community that he set out to investigate and looked into in depth.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I probably didn't make my point clear. Newell is the source for "Some critics have maintained that JF teaches celibacy as a better or higher way, and that single members have been pressurized into the vow". I believe he is the only source who uses the strong words "maintained" and "pressurized". My point was intended to be that he goes on to balance this by "I have not myself seen any evidence of this.", which has been transformed into "Current members deny this". John Campbell (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't meaningful that he hasn't seen it happen. He is doing his job by reporting on what others have said, and should not mention things he has not seen. But if he is the only source to use "pressurized" then it may be considered an extraordinary claim. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I AgreeBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The current revision ("feel pressured") may be adequate. John Campbell (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful!

John Campbell (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweak -1969 (agreed)

To be accurate, should the JA be changed to the JFC for the formation date of 1969, given that the JA didn't exist at all until 1980-something?

It just niggles me a bit

(but is not an issue, as such)

Perhaps we ought to look at that. Some of that is fairly easy (just looking now) but we would have to introduce the launch of the JA. Also we should probably do a redirect from "Jesus Fellowship" to this article. John Campbell (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite with you here. Heart sank for a moment when I thought you meant there was a JF article on wiki which we would have to deal with next. Relieved to discover (on searching) that I had misunderstood you. What did you mean?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We can create a Jesus Fellowship disambiguation page that will redirect enquiries to the JA page. Rumiton (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful John Campbell (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

An NCCC one too, perhaps?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. What is NCCC? Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

New Creation Christian Community (the community part of the fellowship)Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Jesus fellowship or Jesus fellowship Church are more significant names for an outsider to search on than NCCC. John Campbell (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so too. I doubt that anyone much would search for NCCC. The disambiguation page is in place. Rumiton (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That shows how out of date I am, I suppose, because it's what I'd have looked for first. But I am fine with your joint decision.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaks (suggestions) (agreed)

I wonder if the "Baptist Union and Evangelical Alliance" section would be better titled "Past controversy". My only concern there would be whether it would open up a whole new can of worms. John Campbell (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that, JohnBristol Sycamore (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it might become a "POV Magnet." As it stands, it sounds quite neutral to me. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. John Campbell (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There's one sentence which my eye & brain trip on every time: "A number of member churches threatened to pull out if the Jesus Fellowship Church was allowed to remain in the Alliance", so that every time I read it I wonder if someone scanning that will not grasp that it refers to members of the EA who refused to pull out. Could it be changed to "EA member churches" or better, "a number of churches in the Evangelical Alliance threatened to pull pull out if the Jesus Fellowship Church was allowed to remain a member." (I am aware that I haven't explained very well why the sentence as it stands might cause confusion.....I may have to think more on it)Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I think the word "if" next to JFC may cause the problem. I know this will seem silly, but in his context I think my brain sometimes changes it to an "of"...because it is about membership. Sorry to seem a bit odd.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably your eye expects to read "pull out of." How about "threatened to leave"? Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that might work. Let's try that. Thanks.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But has the sentence now got too far away from the last mention of EA so that I now neds to introduce EA at its start rather than the end. "A number of churches in the Evangelical Alliance threatened to leave if the Jesus Fellowship Church was allowed to remain a member." might be better for that reason. Read the whole paragraph. John Campbell (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that reads nicely.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jiggled things around a bit. Does it read OK? Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. John Campbell (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AgreedBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What will be the state of play once agreement is reached?

Will people be able to change the article, will they be able to add or remove parts, references, links etc? Is there any danger that all our good work could be undone by spoilers or others who simply don't agree with what we have written or agreed?

If someone goes to edit it, will they be stopped by some mechanism or message, or will changes then lead to some other process?

I am still quite an amateur here, you will appreciate.

I'd like to be able to walk away from this whole process, draw a line under the last twenty-five years and get back to my life. And I am sure you, Rumiton, and John would like to be able to get on with your lives too....happy that this will stay intact.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The beauty of wiki is that articles are always open to edits, in the most part that is a good thing as the world is ever evolving.It seems to me that everyone else here IS getting on with their lives, it's just you that seems stuck as you are on other forums —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicpixie (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Manicpixie, please sign your posts as a demonstration of good faith. Also please be more civil. Your comment was sarcastic and uncalled-for, and could only be unhelpful to the progress we feel we are making. WP:CIVIL Rumiton (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rumiton. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Once we have reached agreement, you guys on the overall fairness and neutrality of the article, I on the Wikikosherness of it (just made that up) a wonderful thing will happen. You guys will take over responsibility for it. This means you will switch from being eagle-eyed critics of the article to being its defenders. You will be happy to do this because you will understand how the current wording has been arrived at, and will see that it can not and should not veer off in anyone's personal direction. If anyone tries to do this (of course they will) you will be able to quote from the relevant Wiki guidelines (WP:V, WP:BLP and so forth, see above somewhere) to quickly persuade them why their idea is not a good one. The number of editors trying to do this will be limited, and they should quickly get the idea. Of course, this does not mean the article cannot grow and alter, just that any change has to be well-sourced, fair and neutral, and in compliance with all the guidelines. Jossi and I will be around if you need help. Rumiton (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh God!Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If I'd known, I probably wouldn't have bothered. John does this sort of thing as his job; he has the time, I shouldn't have. There will be endless attempts to deliberately spoil the site. It would be a novelty working WITH John...rather a nice thought....but it won't be long before he will have the reins, exclusively, and that is a tiny bit worrying, with respect, John. (I'm sure you'd feel the same about me) Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit scary, but we have no option. John Campbell (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

References - JA books by the JA themselves

Much as I love Trevor, should his book be in the references, considering he is an elder in the JA and is a very long standing member (there since long before I was)? He is clearly not neutral. His book was written as a PhD thesis, I believe I am right in saying, during the 1980s. He was my elder in the Oxford household when writing the doctorate, and at the time it was spoken of as a book which would give us some kudos, as a community rooted in a historical context. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It has some value I think. John Campbell (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it has intrinsic value as a piece of writing, but what is its value here?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The only directly relevant part is the short Appendix about the New Creation Christian Community. If I were doing a serious study it would be of some value to that, I guess. John Campbell (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While we are about it, I don't understand why "Cooper, Simon & Farrant, Mike (1997). Fire In Our Hearts" is in the references, either, as it is a gushingly JA/self-promoting book written by two very long-standing elders. It is very definitely not neutralBristol Sycamore (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a self-referencing reference is allowed in an article because it says what the subject says about itself. At least it is now clear that that is what it is. Rumiton? John Campbell (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as long as there are no other serious issues it's OK. Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that Hadden's objection to the JAW site has been overturned, I take it that the JAW link will be allowed to remain? It is not an "apostate" site and the only referenced objection to it had been Hadden's and whether because he is no longer a stable referee or because he is accepted to have changed his mind about the site, is there any reason why it may not now remain, Rumiton?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What are the Wiki rules here? John Campbell (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The only problem would be that it appears to be an unmoderated site which might be perceived as an "attack site," which would violate WP:BLP. I think I should ask Jossi about this one. I'll get back to you. Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, if you look at the forum there it is more often frequented by current members who put up quite a fierce defense of the JA against only moderate criticism, to be fair. I think most people just go there to reminisce about things they miss about community etc. Inevitably there is criticism, but it is by no means a concerted attack. In fact, they/we are a very disparate bunch....and then there are the trolls (on both sides of the divide). It would be a shame if access to the extensive archive was lost to serious researchers because of a really quite innocuous forum.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen of that forum I would agree, but I have seen links to unmoderated forums removed on the grounds of their unpredictability. I would like to wait to hear what Jossi says. How do you feel about JAW, John? Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi was unequivocal: "Not appropriate as per WP:EL. See the section Links to avoid" ≈ jossi ≈ I think he meant that blogs and forums where the content is not rigorously sourced (by editorial moderation) are unacceptable in Wiki. Rumiton (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's true that in the past the JAW forum has carried libellous claims of the most scurrilous kind that I have had to get Voyforums (the host) to intervene in order to have removed. John Campbell (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

John's comment is entirely untrue. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I'd have to agree with John that some pretty outrageous stuff has been said; I get it said of me (and ironically by the same character! You gotta smile!)....but that's what you get when you give people freedom of speech, as here. As I don't think Voyforums have ever intervened to remove anything I've said (didn't know they DID intervene), I hope that means I am not guilty of the same? If Mike was to separate off his Watch site from teh forum, would it be allowed, Rumiton?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Voy have not, and do not intervene. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Which part of my statement are you saying is untrue? Pete agreed with me about the content, and if you check your emails for Nov/Dec 2004 and Jan 2003 you may find details which may have escaped your memory. It's certainly true that I asked you to intervene and remove highly libellous material, which you were extremely reluctant to do. After I contacted voy forums, the posts disappeared. "Furthermore, Voyager reserves the right, but has no obligation, to remove any material it wishes at any point in time, specifically but not limited to material that violates, or is alleged to violate, the law or this agreement. Notwithstanding this right of Voyager, you and other users of VoyForums remain solely responsible for the content of the material you post on VoyForums, information you make available through VoyForums, or your private e-mail messages." See the terms of use and this form. John Campbell (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Which part ? The statement as a whole ! You know full well Voy did not intervened to remove those contributions to the board, and it's deceitful of you to claim otherwise. As you've highlighted our email exchange at the time, here's one i sent to you. 18/01/2003 John, Once you had originally alerted me to your concerns, and following my initial response to you, the message within the VoyForums message board system, which you are accusing of containing libellous information had been removed by virtue of moderated blocking of the message. I did not allow it to stand in any way following receipt of the original contact from yourself, and it was blocked at the earliest opportunity, mid afternoon 17th Jan 2003. I take note that you are not willing to state that the supposed allegation within the message posting is untrue. Therefore, I will reinstate the message, should information come into my possession that the statement within the message is in fact true. Until that time the message you have shown concern over, will remain permanently moderated. Kindest regards, mike

By the logic you express here, it would be right to assume that a number of messages on your forum one week earlier where removed as a result of Police intervention, after they where alerted to messages containing 'incitement to violence against Homosexuals'. As such, shouldn't the link to jesus.org.uk be removed from the article also, as it contains an equally 'unmoderated forum' ? --Mike Aldrich (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton. The content of jesusarmywatch.org.uk is rigorously sourced and editorially controlled, as described in depth earlier within this discussion page. The Voy hosted forum linked to by the jesusarmywatch.org.uk website is moderated, as described in the Rules link on the main forum page. Both John Campbell and Bristol Sycamore have had their own contributions removed from the Voy message board in the past, other contributions have been removed following both of their requests also, i'm surprised both omitted to mention that within this discussion. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I didn't mention having had messages removed because John was referring to edits made by VoyForums, not by you. I have also been grateful when you have removed stuff which was quite clearly gratuitously libellous.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not something I was aware of, nor something to which, to my knowledge, have you notified me of. Certainly you resisted strongly my requests to remove blatantly libellous material. John Campbell (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As you brought up Nov/Dec 2004 earlier (the only other time you've complained about contributions other than your spat with Brian) The first of your contributions moderated was post number 239 dated 25/10/2004 - in response to a contribution by 'The Scholar' - moderated after you emailed me complaining about the thread over a month later on 29/11/2004. As described in the board rules all responses to removed messaged are also removed by the system, which obviously included your contributions to the discussion. Having been removed at your own request, you now say you expected me to inform you of the success of your self-moderation request ? Huh ? --Mike Aldrich (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith – I'm struggling with this one, when it's evident in this section of the discussion that both of the main contributors have been so liberal with the truth that they have knowingly let Rumiton to make an edit based on a false assumption. Both have requested moderation, both have had posts moderated, one has even been banned from posting for a period of time. Neither have corrected Rumiton !

I don't expect the link to be restored, but i should at least be provided with a truthful reason for it's removal, rather than the bullshit we see here!--Mike Aldrich (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I deeply resent your suggestion that I misrepresented the situation to Rumiton, Mike; I think I deserve better. I know you are angry, but you are letting rip without thinking this through, and I think you have a misconception of the control either John or I have over anything Rumiton does. I can't speak for John's comments, but you have said to me that you don't want to edit the content of your site any more, and while I have certainly been very grateful when you have removed some pretty nasty stuff on the forum, it has often remained there for several weeks, while you have been very reluctant to intervene. It has been a characteristic of the forum that it is essentially unmoderated, except in extremis. JAW is often positively compared for this reason with the JA's own forum, which is heavily controlled. I really value your site and would like it to be able to be included here and for that reason, please, can I urge you to make your case without resorting to acrimony.Please, we have to assume good faith. It is a fundamental principle here.

The truthful reason for the edit, I believe, is Rumiton's & Jossi's perception and it is for you now to disabuse them of thisBristol Sycamore (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really just a perception, Pete, though you are very welcome to request a comment from another editor or administrator. Please read carefully the current discussion on the bottom of my talk page for more, especially the definition of "moderated." Rumiton (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, Rumiton. I don't need a second opinion, though Mike may want one. I am in an invidious position here. Mike is a friend and feels I have let him down. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit, due to reason given for it being inaccurate in referring to aspects of the message board associated with (and linked from) the jesusarmywatch.org.uk website, rather thatn the jesusarmywatch.org.uk website itself, which the link is to. If the link within the page was directly to www.voy.com/110322/ then the reasons given at the time would have been acceptable. (BTW the forum at www.voy.com/110322/ is now set to only show contributions from unregistered users once they have been reviewed and approved) --Mike Aldrich (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

State of play now

I think the only sections in this talk page that currently need finalising are:

Pictures (active)
Tweaks -- Current_practices about "1800" size and "emphasis"
~~Tweak-1969 about disambiguation/forwarding~~
~~Tweaks (suggestions) about "pull out if"~~
References - JA_books by the JA themselves about Pilgrims of a Common Life and the JAW site

In addition the references and citations need a bit of stylistic tidy up.

John Campbell (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the pictures look a bit distant for this thumb sized reproduction, but the one of the Jesus Centre by day looks like it could work. I'll leave it to you to think about.

OK. I'll upload that picture John Campbell (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Army baptism

Northampton Jesus Centre

John Campbell (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the other issues have been covered, except for the formation of the existing and forthcoming centres. You can put them in also. I don't think they are promotional, just factual. I am still waiting for Jossi (who is the busiest person in the universe) to get back to me on the JAW link. Can we take off the "Disputed Neutrality" tag? Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy for that. Outstanding points above. John Campbell (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so tooBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is a statement of intention; I take it it is not taken to be final agreement? I'd need to dwell on the final cut before that....but I feel very positive about it all. Thanks to you both for that.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is carved in granite. As long as all involved parties are reasonably accepting of the current state of the article we can proceed normally with the fine-tuning. I definitely think we should leave the tag on top of this page though, that requires editors to discuss any suggested changes here first. Something I have seen work on another spiritual/religious group page, once an agreed-to version was reached, was that the contending parties agreed to talk to their own, so to speak. So, for example, if a young JA person shows up and wants to write about his personal beliefs, John would quietly direct him to a more appropriate venue. And if an ex-member were to arrive wishing to grumble, then Pete would be the one to say politely "Not here, Mate." Rumiton (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly attempt the tactful comment, but it is only fair to say that out here in the world, as opposed to within the church, I am just another voice. I have no influence, really....and I do fear that there are spoilers on both sides waiting to pounce. I think if I can assure you, John, now, that I will be cooperative, and if you have more time to monitor things than I do, you might give me a nudge (by email)if you spot anything you think inappropriate from my "side" and I will do what I can.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go along with that. John Campbell (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK John. You can most easily contact me through the address on my blog. I really don't use any older ones Tschaka may still have.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I feel you will both need is a bit more readiness to draw the Wikipedia gun. The Wiki rules and guidelines are our only defense against being drawn into an agonising edit war. And they are good, and getting better. Try them! Rumiton (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Rumiton, I shall have a good look after the holiday. John, as you are not into Xmas, I trust you will be around? I shall be away for a fortnight.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean like saying, "You can't say that because of WP:V". John Campbell (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, John! It is a whole lot more likely to work than saying "You can't say that because I don't like it" or "...because I know it isn't true" or "...because I was there and I remember things differently." Rumiton (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As regards the tag, would editors necessarily read this page (and see the notice)before changing the article? Is there a subtle way to direct people here when they are about to edit?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I shall look for an article tag that does that. Rumiton (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find an article tag that says that, but I beefed up the Discussion Page tag a bit. If someone vandalises the article you are within your rights to revert their edit and politely draw their attention to this tag. Rumiton (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rumiton. I shall be away from tomorrow night. I don't know if I shall "see you" after the holiday; I hope you will still be about? In the meantime, you have done a wonderful job in difficult circumstances. Thank you very much indeed. It isn't the article I'd have written, perhaps, but it really isn't at all far off it. I hope it won't change much. I will look in during the day tomorrow, in case things change, but Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you (and your kin).Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I shall keep the article on my watchlist and say hello now and then. It's been a pleasure working with such heartfelt people. Rumiton (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Without it we would have been nowhere! John Campbell (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a couple of pictures to the main page, as outlined above. OK?

How do you guys feel about

(a) "Pilgrims of a Common Life" reference. I'm not too fussed, to be honest.
(b) Number correction (again), as outlined above, to delete "including children", or possible, changing to "plus children", in line with the Sources.
(c) My suggestion of "though a major aspect of these activities is evangelistic", as above.

John Campbell (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes (b) and (c) in light of the lack of comments. John Campbell (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced new additions

Woooooo! Whatcha gonna do, guys? Rumiton (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wooooooo is right! I'll be honest, I don't know, Rumiton. I don't have time to do much, so I may wait for John. (the coward's way out)Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have welcomed Canaldrifter/Tony on his Talk page and invited him to discuss possible edits here.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, good start! In the meantime you need to undo the whole edit, using the word "revert" in your edit summary, and start thinking about how you are going to explain this to him/her. You might plan to mention reliable sources, NPOV, No Original Research, words to avoid...pardon me! Getting carried away. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. Trouble is, I am not too hot on the rules myself...and I'll be honest, I am not very comfortable being authoritarianBristol Sycamore (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is understandable and commendable, but this is like a new player at cricket or football. If they are going to participate enjoyably they need to have the rules explained to them, in a kind and sympathetic but definite way. Rumiton (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Rumiton, I have done the revert and left Tony another message. I might ask John if he would take it from here. I am under pressure, time-wise. But inevitably I will look in when possible.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Great start! Rumiton (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Rumiton. That was my first ever bit of assertive editing. Cheers for now. -Peter Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch (the bad guy already!)http://www.voy.com/110322/6285.html

Well done, Pete. Been out of circulation today due to power cables being down. John Campbell (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John. Wondered where you were when I needed you most ;) Don't much enjoy being the wicked censor though. I think it would smooth things a bit if you could explain to Tony. I think he is a bit put out about this, as he says you asked him to add to the article.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might explain to user:Canaldrifter that this is not Jesus Army's "own" site. Nobody owns a Wikipedia site, all sites are equal parts of Wikipedia which, to prevent falsehood, libel and endless acrimony, has to ensure that all the rules are respected. Rumiton (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Canaldrifter was not suggesting that this was Jesus Army's site. He seemed to think it was just as much Pete's site as anyone else's. Anyway, the matter is resolved. John Campbell (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It does appear to be resolved. I was referring to a comment he made on the JAW forum: "Are you telling me that Wiki have that much control over you even on your own website?" He was clearly talking about this article. Not an uncommon misconception. Rumiton (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the detailed exegesis of that passage depends on the question, 'who is "you"'? :-) John Campbell (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

He also added that "they will remove anything from their Wikipedia site that they don't agree with" so that gives us another pronoun to be perplexed about. (About which to be perplexed. Sorry, Pete.) :-) Rumiton (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(Moved this new post to below old posts for clarity...Rumiton.) When you say it is resolved, John, do you mean that you have actually had a chance to talk it over with Tony and explain why a revert was necessary? I don't think we should assume that letting off steam on JAW will have made Tony much happier (neither you nor I appreciate feeling silenced or misrepresented either). He did say that you asked him to write the piece, so I imagine he would appreciate your support in bringing the edits to the table.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have talked to Tony privately. I don't think he has the energy/heart to go through the Wikipedia process. For the sake of completeness, I will post his suggested additions below, for discussion. John Campbell (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested additions

JESUS ARMY ONLINE

The Jesus Army hosts a very comprehensive http://www.jesus.org.uk/ja/index.shtml that explains their faith and their church structure. It also includes some very useful downloads of Christian books http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/ many written from a different perspective to their own church.

They also host a very active online forum http://www.jesus.org.uk/forum/index.php where anyone can contribute their thoughts under different headings.

Posts are initially moderated, but new posters are quickly given trusted status once they prove to be trustworthy. This does not mean they have to be sympathetic to the Jesus Army cause. Some posters who contribute to lively debate are quite critical of their stance. The online forum is regarded as an outreach and information tool, as is their periodical free hard-copy magazine, the Modern Jesus Army Streetpaper http://www.jesus.org.uk/ja/mag_splatest_index.shtml also available online and for download. This often contains thought provoking articles on Christian themes, and interesting testimonies of members.

It seems to me that a review of the link is not required, as the user can just click on it and see it for themselves. The article is about the JA, not their media.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

MEMBERSHIP

The Jesus Fellowship Church has eight levels of 'membership'.

"New Friends"  There's always lots of them around. They go to meetings and their houses, find friendship among them and they claim, meet Jesus. They claim to love them! They look forward to meeting many more of them in these days when they claim the Jesus Movement is growing around the land.

"Cell-church Members"  They are regular attenders at a midweek Cell-church meeting, have found faith in Jesus, and been baptised. They truly belong to their 'family'!

"Congregational Members"  They are regular attenders at congregational meetings, have found faith in Jesus and been baptised. Like cell-church members, they are regarded as belonging to the family without officially becoming members of the whole church.

"Baptised Members"  They are members of the church, regularly involved in it's activities and supportive of it's vision and practice. They are not covenant committed but find their way amongst the church at their own pace. But they are very much part of the family!

"Style One Covenant Members"  These are members of their church family who are baptised and join in a heart-to-heart covenant relationship. They are often those who are spiritually "young" in Jesus and cannot yet handle a stronger commitment. Others are "Style One" because of their circumstances. "Style One Members" normally attend the Tuesday evening Agape meal http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library_hottopics16.shtml and weekend meetings of the church household and congregation.

"Style Two Covenant Members" These are baptised members of their church family who feel that they can join in a heart-to-heart covenant relationship with a stronger commitment. This includes a recognition of the radical nature of Kingdom of God culture, with time, financial and serving commitments. It is for those who feel unable to join Style Three community, preferring to retain their own house and lifestyle but who are keen to live in simplicity, discipleship and sharing.

"Style Three Covenant Members"  These are baptised members of their church family who have responded to the call to have "all things in common" like the first Christians. They join in a heart-to-heart covenant relationship, desiring the fullest possible commitment. They see the Kingdom of God in the church and desire the church family to be a community over which Jesus is Lord. They share wealth, possessions and income (and pay debts!). They live in small or large houses owned by the church family.

"Style Four Covenant Members"  These are baptised members of their church family who desire to join in a heart-to-heart covenant relationship, but live at a distance from any Jesus Fellowship congregation, so cannot regularly participate. Nevertheless they are loved and fellowship with them is maintained.

http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library_hottopics01.shtml

Although the Jesus Army has been criticised for some of its more unacceptable practices by mainstream Christianity in the past, they are becoming more and more tolerant of beliefs that don't quite match their own. Some ex-members have expressed online the hurt caused to them through membership. This is usually based on complaints of too much personal control, forbidding of certain clothing and jewelry etc., encouraging celibacy and the subjection of women members. However, times change, and the Jesus Army has more recently modified many of these attitudes.

Many seekers have found refuge within the Jesus Fellowship Church when they felt rejected by other Christian denominations, particularly those who are vulnerable or lonely. Younger people are attracted by their worship style that includes modern music, dance and light shows.

An independant Jesus Army Watch website exists, that monitors their activities. www.jesusarmywatch.org.uk/

Tony Haynes Clerk to Hampshire and Surrey Quaker Area Meeting Not a Jesus Army member, but a contributer to the Jesus Army online Forum as 'Drifter'.

[moved from article page for the purposes of discussion] John Campbell (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The questions we have to ask ourselves is what of this is significant (there's a Wikiword for that), what comes from Reliable Sources and is Verifiable. If it doesn't come from a RS, then is there an RS to provide the same information. John Campbell (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, John. The Wiki expression is "relevant to their notability." Also, a Wikipedia article cannot be "promotional" in tone, and must not be Original Research (which really means it can't be the personal opinion of the writer.) Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was that the JA are regarded as a reliable source when they are talking about themselves (in an article about the JA), so surely the material which comes from the JA vault, as all the membership stuff (above) does is reliably sourced? My only objection is that it is wordy and adds nothing that cannot be found via the link. Only the last two paras could be said to be opinion/OR. I am sorry Tony doesn't have the heart to pursue the process because it is important that the article does not appear to be jealously guarded against the contributions of othersBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the key notable facts presented here are the different styles of membershipn, which expand on a cryptic sentence in the article. They would need boiling down into a pithy statement however. John Campbell (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives