Talk:Jesus Army/Archive 1

message: ..."but with none of the daft beliefs".  It sounds like a personal reference (and non-POV), especially considering the use of "we".
[moved manually John Campbell (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barmy Army 

message: This article exists to promote the Jesus Army, which is a church with a heavy PR/outreach emphasis. The interests of the JA in this article are protected by their Public Relations man and webmaster, John Campbell, and by numerous members and associates of the JA.
It is a point of contention whether the article can be regarded as having a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) when this is the case, and when all the stops are pulled out to counter efforts to present a more balanced point of view (POV)of this controversial church's history. Over the years numerous contributions have highlighted the fact that the church has been regarded as a cult, with some justification....but these have been removed.
When I noticed the article a month or two ago it was apparent, as David Rattigan's comment bears out, that the Criticism section had been severely weeded, leaving the impression of respectability which the church now hopes to project. So I have attempted to contribute to the section, adding pertinent information.
Though I have endeavoured to give a fair picture of the opposition the church has sustained over the years, I willingly admit that I am not a dispassionate contributor, so have asked that this section be rewritten by someone disinterested, using the research material I have found (or their own). 
I would also ask that members of the JA, John Campbell etc also declare their own conflict of interest(COI), as their need to defend the church makes their own neutrality questionable.
What is called for is someone who is neither a member or associate of the church, nor an ex-member to read all the available material and write a neutral article.  I have written to John Campbell suggesting that he re-write the Criticism section himself and then runs it past me to see if we can agree a compromise with which we might all then be happy -(typo edit by Peter). I have received no reply, but I believe he takes my point. Peter Eveleigh Bristol Sycamore 12:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my RfA lower down: Talk:Jesus_Army#Request_for_Assistance, which I composed while Pete was posting the above. I agree on the need for neutral editing, and indeed proposed it earlier. Nonetheless, I dispute many of Pete's other comments above. My involvement with the Jesus Army has always been made clear on my user page, and I have not attempted to suppress any pertinant information. Since I became more aware of some of the aspects of WP:COI I have drawn back from editing here. John Campbell 13:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks John; seems we crossed in the ether. John, in your absence, numerous other members of or friends of the JA have contributed, and while the church is one in which members submit to Elders, clealy their COI is also in doubt. -Peter Eveleigh Bristol Sycamore 13:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested neutrality 

message: After reading through this page, I'd say the Jesus Army POV definitely has the upper hand. No one reading the article would get the impression it's particularly controversial - there is only one negative sentence in the whole article, and no details are given. It is quickly "rebutted" by the Jesus Army POV, including a reference to an article that doesn't even appear to be published anywhere (the link is no longer valid). David L Rattigan 17:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. Ultimately, it is a source written by two leading lights in the JA, presenting a very partial view of the history of the JA; I know, because I was party to some of the events. It is not quite in the spirit of Wikipedia to quote it as backup to a POV.Bristol Sycamore 13:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree Ben. In particlar I think the Jesus Army Watch link is a very solid source. It is worthy of note, I think, that Mike Aldrich does not have an axe to grind. He is not an ex-member, nor someone with a personal horror story. The JA too easily dismiss the POVs of ex members as being invalid, which of course they are not; they are just the valid POV fromt the other side of the coin. But this does not apply to Aldrich, whose integrity is unimpeachable.Bristol Sycamore 10:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of this page 

message: User:Fuchsiashockz has made several edits to the article since January.  I am not sure if the person involved is connected with the site but Fuchsiashocks is a personal project site by a community member of JA in Bournmouth. With those concerns in mind I have removed the two fuchsiashockz links on the grounds of WP:COI.
When small organisations are involved it is generally inappropriate for members or employees to edit the articles. Wikilinking to other Wikipedia that already discuss (with sources) JA is not misinformation. Mike33 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only just getting to grips with the terminology etc here. Sorry for being slow: Just come to understand what this comment is about. You have to laugh. Surely 90% of the content of this entry is COI and should be disallowed, since it is almost entirely controlled by the Jesus Army members.Bristol Sycamore 14:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have the misapprehension that I have provided most of the content of this article, which just isn't true -- just check through the history. And surely you must realise that i don't "control" it either! John Campbell 08:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't say that YOU, John Campbell, had written most of it. I said Jesus Army MEMBERS. Bristol Sycamore 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FuchsiaShockz, Editor [[User_talk:Fuchsiashockz|Fuchsiashockz]] and The Jesus Army 

message: "many who claim to be in need, including 'homeless' young people". That's blatant editorializing to add "claim to be" and putting the quotes round homeless. 199.71.183.2 14:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorialising 

message: Bristol Sycamore (aka Pete Eveleigh) has inserted a long section about his own actions. I believe this is against the principles of Wikipedia and should be removed. John Campbell 08:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you prefer I shall ask Mike Aldrich (or someone else) to re-write the entry. However, it will not change the facts, as the references quoted attest. John, it is all very well banging on about fair play, but at the end of the day my contributions have only been necessary because the JA has hitherto tried to control the story. I am more than happy for someone else to take my place. All I ask is that a balance be struck. -Peter EveleighBristol Sycamore 15:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if you would argue that Albert Einstein would not be allowed to contribute to an article on relativity, on the grounds of COI? If you actually dispute the truth of my contributions, by all means refute them with evidence - or challenge my sources. But if you are going to get up in arms about COI, shouldn't you recuse yourself, as you are the JA's Public Relations man? Bristol Sycamore 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not "banging on about fair play", all I'm asking is that Wikipedia principles are respected -- which I don't think allow your self-published sources. I do wonder if there are any neutral editors interested in this article. It would be a great help. And that is not an attempt to "control" this Wikipedia entry. John Campbell 16:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on John. I am sure you are far more interested in the JA's image than in Wikipedia rules. But I agree. I would be delighted if someone who is neither ex-JA nor a current member would re-write the article. All I ask is that the article reflect the fact of the very sizeable opposition to the JA, which has long existed.Bristol Sycamore 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ideally someone who can write from a NPOV, I guess. So it's probably not a good idea to recruit someone from Mike's forum then? I think the Wikipedia advice is to take a break and cool down, which I intend to do. John Campbell 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, it is hard to see how anyone with anything to say on this subject can possibly be entirely neutral. What you say about my COI is fair comment because I am named in person. It is entirely reasonable for anyone who is not me to write the same piece, citing the same sources. I really can't see why you, as a JA PR man can consider yourself impartial, while objecting to an ex-member of the JFC. If you are entitled to edit the article, someone else from the JAW is perfectly entitled to too. I would like to step back from all this, myself. So I really welcome a re-write. I never would have put my oar in if there hadn't appeared to be a definite effort to suppress the appearance of opposition to the JFC in the last few decades.Bristol Sycamore 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bristol Sycamore = Pete Eveleigh 

message: "An additional 1,800 members live outside these communities and operate much like members of larger churches, such as the Anglican Church."
This is rather disingenuous, to say the very least. I am astonished by the efforts to portray JA membership as being in any sense mainstream. I wonder if whoever described it thus, or whether John Campbell could write something more representative here -or at least justify the statement? There was a time when the JA would have hated to be thought of as mainstream, but efforts to do it now seem to be about attempting respectability (when others might call them a cult).
Bristol Sycamore 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, THIS is a DISCUSSION page where disagreement can be aired. I have respected NPOV by not putting any contentious response on the article itself, but the statement does require some justification, as you and I both know. Making this about my bona fides (as intact as your POV) doesn't change the fact.  Bristol Sycamore 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't write that sentence in question, and I have refrained from editing since I better appreciated Wikipedia's guidelines. However there are steps that a COI editor may take. John Campbell 11:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are good at this editing stuff, please could you put one of those messages on it asking for a citation? I am sure you want it clarified as much as I do.Bristol Sycamore 16:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likening non-community life of JA members to the Anglican church! 

message: Peter Eveleigh has not rejoined the JA, as suggested by one silly poster calling himself Brian the something or other in a recent revision. Regardless of protocol, further repeats of the assertion will just be removed as being patently untrue. I am Peter Eveleigh; I think I should know ;)
Bristol Sycamore 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  in case there is any doubt.. 

message: John Campbell has conceded that the JFC's policy on Corporal Punishment has undergone significant change. He has asked that the section referring to the 1980s policy of using the rod on children and the wooden spoon on infants be removed, as these are, so I infer, no longer acceptable means of punishment. It would help to know what the current policy now is and when this change came about; and helpful to know why the policy was changed.-Peter Eveleigh Bristol Sycamore 13:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David V Barrett: The New Believers p. 227 "The way of life in Jesus Army communities has been described as austere. Everything is shared -- their money, their possessions, even sometimes their clothes. TV and radio are banned; only Christian music is allowed. Children are allowed few toys, and are given strict discipline, including corporal punishment, although the slipper has replaced the rod because of external criticism" [and that is no longer used either - John] John Campbell (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A useful admission, given John's earlier attempt to give the impression that my references to the use of the rod, which had been a major concern of mine, were calculatedly misleading. I did ask John to clarify this in a section of its own [this one. this para and one above have been copied from below, so as to avoid their being lost in mass of other material] , but he chose to ignore it.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My contributions below of NPOV quotes and references at the request of Rumiton are simply by way of contribution. I certainly did not suggest that you had been 'calculatedly misleading'. I merely said that: 'You might find it helpful to review what was actually alleged' and gave Noel's words as quoted in a newspaper and verified from a transcript, which were apparently at variance with what you had written. Although you didn't respond directly to that, you have removed that section. If and when it comes to be rewritten, I am sure you will want to ensure that it is a correct representation. John Campbell 11:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of Corporal Punishment policy needed 

message: Following Rumiton's request for third party sources, and as per WP:V#Sources I'd like to explain a little about the press clipping archive collated here  . Each article has been personally verified as accurate before inclusion within the archive from either original material or public library microfiche material. The majority are sources from local and national UK newspapers, which may or may not be considered primary sources depending on specific publication and article age etc. I'll leave that to the editors/admins to decide. It is not an exhaustive archive in that we're aware of many other articles, (many of which will be included once verified).  A small number of the archive articles have also had sensitive personal information, being individuals names, removed and replaced with 'him', 'her', 'a man' etc, to save individual embarrassment or following specific requests from both those named and surviving relatives of those named.  Articles within the archive have been/are being linked to or have been cited by the wikipedia article over recent years. Further citations have been used recently in edits by Bristol Sycamore, and further still by John Campbell within User:John_Campbell/Jesus_Army which hopefully demonstrates a usable and acceptable source for current editors and interested parties. Further 'selected' newspaper articles, some of which are yet to be included within the archive, but which could be verified by other contributors to this discussion are available here  Each article has also had typo corrections since a selection of articles from the archive where duplicated here  I hope this is of help concerning the  Wikipedia:Verifiability of sources under consideration.  --Mike Aldrich 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original sources can be cited, but not the copies of these sources in a self-published website about which we do not have any indications of reliability (besides your mention that are accurate). So, it is possible to cite BUILDING WORK IS ON SCHEDULE AS RELIGIOUS GROUP TRANSFORMS FORMER ART DECO CINEMA, 26/06/2004 Northampton Chronicle, for example, if the  Northampton Chronicle is a reputable publication, with a known fact checking process, and if the article is not an op-ed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can newspaper sources be cited if I have the hardcopy but cannot provide an online link to an internet newspaper? I ask because many of these articles were published before the internet and so are not archived online. Is it possible, for instance, to put scans onto my PC and email them to Rumiton; or could I scan them onto photobucket and provide links that way?-- Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  For what it's worth, I can confirm that Mike's archive is accurate (with one minor exception in a headline) and comprehensive, though not exhaustive. On the other hand, some of the articles in Rick Ross's archive, which is far more selective, appear to have been summarised or are only extracts from the full article. John Campbell 09:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for these. As we work through the article, we will need to consider each reference individually. Rumiton 11:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Jossi, If any editors using the archive for research purposes question the reliability of any of the articles content, or any editors dispute the duplicated content within the archive, I'll be able to assist by directing them to a source of the original published material. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Starting a new section for easier downloading. Thank you for the correction, Peter. Yes, of course I meant that the alleged emotional woundings and the stated epiphany are all subjective experiences, and therefore unverifiable. They can be referred to, if mentioned by sources, but should never be described as fact (bear with me here). But what can be talked about, providing neutral, third party sources exist, might be the objective effect that the acknowledgement of these experiences had on the development of the JA group, its principles and the type of participation of its members. Are there sources for these things? Rumiton 11:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's encouraging, Rumiton. Thanks, I shall get on it, though work is increasingly pressing and I can't spend all my free time here. There may therefore be some delay. I hope others will also be active on this.Bristol Sycamore 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article you mention is duplicated within the archive, 08/04/1989 : The Jesus People --Mike Aldrich (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mike. Re-reading it, I had to smile. It is a measure of how far I'd come and how much I was mellowing in my opposition in 1989 that I was happy with this article, considering how innocuous the JA appear in it. And perhaps if the JA hadn't now sought to revise history so dramatically or to use Wiki so self-interestedly, I would have been quite happy to leave it at that. It's a good article (Dalrymple, 1989), and considering how much this is the case, I hardly think John Campbell can complain that it is too journalistic.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is meant to refer to my involvement in this article, and I don't see to whom else it could be meant to apply, I would appreciate it if you would moderate your personal criticism, which is completely unfounded. Please remember in any case that your views are those of an unrepresentative minority. The purpose of Wkipedia is to be an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. John Campbell (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My word, you are sensitive, John. I had no idea you were involved in the article at all. "unrepresentative minority" is an odd term, which bears some examination. Sure, there are more in your church than there are speaking out against it, but I am not sure that negates our legitimate concerns. I have made no personal criticism regarding your involvement IN the article. I have merely said that seeing as the JA comes out as innocuous in it, I'd have thought you'd be rather happier with the article and not dismiss it as merely journalistic.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well as long as you concede the balance, it will be good for my purposes. It may be old, but since my contribution is to the history of opposition to the JA, that is fair enough. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The experiences and their effects 

message: Turning to the request to source the sentence: "The church was affected by the Charismatic Movement in the late 1960s and early 70s and influenced by the Jesus People movement in the USA."
David V Barrett: "The New Believers" p. 227: The Jesus Army, or the Jesus Fellowship Church (its formal name), developed at around the same time as the hippie-style Jesus Movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, but from related but different roots: 'more the impact of the charismatic movement on an old-established Baptist chapel,' says John Campbell, communications officer for the Jesus Army. Its doctrine is straightforward Evangelical Christianity, with both a Reformed and a Charismatic element; it is included in this book because of its very visible style, and because of some concerns which have been raised about it over the years.
Nigel Scotland: "Charismatics and the New Millennium" p.25: The charismatic movement brought a number of religious communities into being. One such group is the Jesus Fellowship and later the Jesus Army which was based initially at Bugbrooke in Northamptonshire. It emerged from the local Baptist church under the inspirational ministry of its pastor, Noel Stanton (b 1926) and his fellow leaders.
C. Peter Collinson: "All Churches Great and Small" p.78: Originally this was a Baptist church in the village of Bugbrooke, just west of Northampton. Noel Stanton became the pastor there in 1957, and is still the overall leader. After a charismatic experience in 1969, he led the church into experiencing the supernatural gifts of the spirit, and they grew in numbers quite dramatically.
Stephen J Hunt: "Alternative Religions" p. 36: A good example of a successful Christian community, however, is the Jesus fellowship -- a British variant of the Jesus movement which emerged in the late 1960s.
Chryssides p148ff has an extensive discussion of the charismatic movement and its relevance to the start of the Jesus Fellowship/Jesus Army, too long in fact to reproduce here.
Nigel Wright in "Charismatic Christianity" ed. Hunt et al p.66: A full description of Restorationism ought to include a reference to the Bugbrooke Community or Jesus Fellowship in Northamptonshire. In the 1970s an ordinary village Baptist church passed under the leadership of its lay pastor, Noel Stanton, into Charismatic renewal and then into practising the community of goods in the style of the Anabaptist Hutterites.
Keith Newell in "Charismatic Christianity" ed. Hunt et al p.122: Under the leadership of the pastor, Noel Stanton (who still holds this position), a number of Chrismatics gathered at Bugbrooke baptist Chapel, near Northampton, in 1969. At this point there were some similarities with the Jesus Movememtn in california (Palms, 1971). For the first three years the group that met at the chapel to participate in Charismatic life included bikers, drug-users, hippies and others who lived through teh counter-culture. Very diverse people joined in the years that followed, including a number of evangelicals from Oxford, and to a lesser extent, Cambridge University.
Jeffrey K Hadden, Religious Movements The Jesus Fellowship Church was founded in the early 1970s in the context of the New Church Movement in the United Kingdom. The latter began to take root in the late 1960s. The New Church Movement paralleled the Jesus People Movement in the United States in many respects including their exploration of communal life. But the spiritual life of this movement was more akin to the Charismatic Movement that was taking root in enclaves of Episcopalians and Roman Catholics in the United States. In the U.S. the "gifts of the spirit" still remains a rarity among Baptist traditions, but the New Church Movement, which has included many Baptists, early embraced the "charismatic gifts." 
re:Quest: At the close of the 1960's - the era of 'flower power', hippies and drug-taking in the U.S.A. and Britain - a Baptist Church at Bugbrooke near Northampton 'came alive'. The emphasis on total commitment to Jesus Christ and the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit attracted people from traditional churches to visit the chapel, led by Pastor Noel Stanton. Many young people joined and soon began to value the close, loving family of what became known as the 'Jesus People'.
They studied the early church in the Acts of the Apostles and began to share their money to help those with needs and to practice community living. Drug users and 'bikers' with violent histories became Christians and their changed lives attracted others looking for spiritual reality. The joy and love that was obvious in the church spilled out onto the streets of Northampton and local villages. Today 'Jesus Army' double-decker buses bring help and hope to many city centres, while 'Jesus People' continue to live 'in community' all across Britain. The organisation has links with other groups in undeveloped countries. Like the Salvation Army of the 19th and 20th centuries, these radical Christians seek to help people with needs that many other churches do not touch. Community life helps converts start a new, secure life of hope, although some slip back and others need long term rehabilitation.
John Campbell (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed sources 

message: The recent use of this article talkpage to make personal allegations must cease immediately. Any recurrence will result in the user's IP being permanently blocked. Rumiton (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rumiton. -PeterBristol Sycamore (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal allegations 

message: I've just relaised that we will need to include something about the growth and geographical spread of the Jesus Army. As the article stands at present we are still with a growing congregation at Bugbrooke, but no explicit mention of elsewhere in the UK. John Campbell (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, a look at the movement's development since inception would be helpful. Sources? Rumiton (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth and Spread 

message: Jeffrey Hadden on Religious Movements
"Motivated by this experience, Noel Stanton inspired many in his chapel congregation to follow in his steps in quest of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Not all would follow, but it would also become the changing point in the life of his congregation, for others soon began to have similar experiences. 
"The group commenced communal living in 1974 and membership grew rapidly in the early years. By 1977 there were almost three hundred in communal residences. The maximum number living communally peaked in the early 1990s with about nine hundred and then slipped back to around seven hundred where it has been stable for a number of years. 
"The fellowship began as a fairly rural enclave, with the first community homes in large houses in Northamption and the surrounding area. Fairly quickly, however, their felt need to engage in spreading the Good News, and their commitment to a ministry of social service to those experiencing suffering and pain, led them to spread out and establish homes in cities." 
William Kay in C. Partridge (ed), Encyclopedia of New Religions, a Guide (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2004).
"The Jesus Fellowship originated from the effect of the charismatic renewal on a Baptist chapel in Bugbrooke near Northampton, England, in 1969. In its beginnings the emerging congregation included bikers, drug users and other members of the counterculture and therefore paralleled aspects of the Californian Jesus movement. At the same time it attracted radical Christians and seekers from all types of backgrounds.
"From 1973, having been influenced by the story of the Church of the Redeemer in Houston, Texas, the congregation decided to embark on community living. Members purchased a large old house and shared possessions while embracing a simple lifestyle. Nuclear families (husband-wife and any children) were incorporated within the community without losing privacy or identity. Major expansion took place between 1976 and 1979 so that the communal lifestyle of the NCCC is now distributed in approximately 70 properties holding between 6 and 60 residents each. The NCCC comprises approximately a quarter of the Jesus Fellowship and the remaining three-quarters are drawn from connected congregations in all parts of Britain. It represents probably the largest and most long-standing charismatic community in Europe."
...
"The community has founded a series of Christian businesses employing some 250 people. Profits from the businesses help fund the wider work of the Jesus Fellowship. Community houses are owned by a trust fund ultimately controlled by the members."
C Peter Collinson: All Churches Geat and Small p.78
 
"Perhaps their most distinctive emphasis has been on community. Over a third of members (which number about 2600 in different centres) live in community houses. These have somewhere between 6 and 60 people, who live together as a family. Those who are church members have a 'common purse', and share possessions. The houses ad as the 'training and service' centres of the church.
"They have also branched out into various business ventures, e.g. farms, health food shops, garages, road haulage. Everybody who works in these businesses is paid the same."
David V Barrett: The New Believers p.227
"His church soon became too small for his rapidly increasing congregation; money was aised and donated to buy more buildings, including an old rectory and then a farm, which became the New Creation Farm. Stanton's congregation became a community. The Jesus fellowship now numbers about 2,500 members.
"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 teh Church may continue to live in their own homes, but about a quarter -- some 700 -- live in communities."
Nigel Scotland: Charismatics and the New Millennium p.25
"beginning in a small way in 1974 with the purchase of Bugbrooke Hall for £6,700, it grew to the extent that in 1999 there were some seventy-six communal houses in the British Isles each with between twelve and thirty adults."
John Campbell (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth and Spread: some Quotes 

message: The Jesus Army claims to uphold the creeds of the Christian faith. Are Creeds said to be "upheld?" Are they not affirmations of belief? Or is there a moral dimension? Better phrasing? Rumiton (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'claims' seems to be a weasel word here, by the way. I'm open to another word instead of 'uphold', but it was taken from the phrasing we use elsewhere and chosen to avoid the simplistic 'believe'. John Campbell (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why avoid "we believe". Why is it simplistic and if so, why is that bad; isn't that clear?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The only alternatives in common usage I have come been able to find are "holds to" and "subscribes to". "Holds to" might be better, if you prefer it. John Campbell (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Why was the Jesus Army at one stage asked to leave the Evangelical Alliance? Rumiton (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other phrases I particularly take issue with in this section are: "publicised beliefs" "many have challenged the orthodoxy of the Jesus Army" "there are those who still question their beliefs". The first relates to Pete's claim that there are a set of secret unpublicised beliefs. I don't know of anyone else who believes that, or any valid sources to back up that claim. There are also a number of free teaching books available for download and others available for purchase as well as a set of "Hot Topics" on the web, corresponding to printed "Flame Leaflets" documenting our beliefs in detail. The second point is that it has not been our doctrine that has been at issue but rather our praxis, as the quotes below illustrate. Also, I'm sure that "there are those" is too vague to be acceptable for Wikipedia, in any case. John Campbell (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (sorry to interrup but)With respect, while I do hold that there are aspects of doctrine which are not publicised, the "many have challenged the orthodoxy of the Jesus Army" was edited in by John Everett, who as a former elder of the church, and who has since studied some theology, is better placed than me to make the assertion Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. The assertion needs to be based on verifiability, not John's views, or your views. John Campbell (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no whatever about it. We are two different people. It is a simple matter of respect. Also, I am well aware of the rules of verifiability now, thank you, John.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs 

message: Chryssides: Exploring New Religions
"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." (p. 124)
"... 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." (p. 149)
"However, the Jesus Army's main difficulties stem from its relationship with the Baptist Union and the Evangelical Alliance in 
Britain. Although local baptist churches are self-governing and autonomous, most of them belong to the Baptist Union, an organization that oversees and co-ordinates the interests and work of baptist churches at a national level. Being a local baptist church in origin, the Bugbrooke Jesus Fellowship had belonged to the Baptist Union. In 1986 they were expelled, for three reasons. the first and main problem related to the Jesus fellowship Church's institutional structures: church government and authority in the baptist Church is normally from a single congregation, whereas the enthusiastic -- some would say aggressive -- evangelizing of the Jesus Army had caused it to become a nationwide organization: it had become the wrong kind of institution to affiliate to the Baptist Union. Secons, its membership of the Baptist Union had been nominal for a number of years, since the Jesus Army's evangelical missions and work amidst the counter-culture took precedence over denominational matters.
"Third, the Baptist Union had found the amount of adverse publicity embarrassing. the rise of the Jesus Fellowship Church began shortly before the Jonestown massacre, which caused the vast majority of people in the USA and Europe to be suspicious of new 'cults'. it was also unfortunate for them that their rise coincided with the inception of Family Action Information and rescue (FAIR) in 1976. FAIR carefully and consistently monitored the Jesus Fellowship Church's developemnt, even from its early Bugbrooke days, giving it adverse publicity in its quarterly magazine FAIR News. Not only did FAIR give prominence to the fact that many members handed over all their possessions to the Church, and to its disputes with the Baptist Union and Evangelical Alliance, unjustly portraying Stanton as an authoritarian leader who claimed an exclusive 'hotline to God', the untimely deaths of three young members -- two in rather strange, although not suspicious circumstances -- helped to fuel fears about this new charismatic group.
"Similar considerations affected the Jesus Army's relationship with the Evangelical Alliance, where a number of member churches threatened to pull out if the Jesus Fellowship Church was allowed to reamin in. After discussions with the Evangelical Alliance's leaders, the Jesus Fellowship Church thought it best to resign in 1985. The JFC was therefore left on the margins of the Baptist denomination, although ironically one Baptist minister was at the time living within the JFC on sabbatical." (p.160) 
Hunt, Alternative Religions p.113
"As a result of controversy and persecution, the Jesus Fellowship grew more defensive and introspective to the extent that it became, if temporarily, sectarian in nature. Retreating from secular society and those who persecuted it, the movement increasingly designated the outside world as 'Babylon'."
Jeffrey Hadden on Religious Movements
"Contemporary Controversies
"In a nation that exhibits a high level of secularization, with religious worship substantially confined to formal occasions of quiet grandeur and dignity, the Jesus Fellowship stands out as highly visible and at least a little peculiar. Thus it is not surprising that the Jesus Fellowship has been controversial from its beginning and continues to be so today. We briefly explore several reason why this is so. 
"The Jesus Fellowship Church effectively elected to be controversial. While many of their beliefs are mainstream, their belief in and practice of the charismatic gifts of the spirit placed them initially outside the mainstream. In the UK in recent years, the charismatic movement has gained rather broad acceptance. Many leaders in the traditional denominations are now charismatics. 
"Also, their communal living, and the accompanying beliefs and practices in the economic, social, moral and religious realms are, by their own acknowledgement, "markedly different" from the mainstream of Christianity and the broader society. Indeed, they have used the concept "radical" to define their lifestyle. 
"The Jesus Fellowship came into existence during the same time period as the rise of the anti-cult movement in the United States and Europe. The anti-cultists warned of awful things that were destined to happen to those who fall under the spell of cult leaders. A few disgruntled former members of various new religions served as exhibits to the British newspapers that the warnings of danger were to be heeded. And the tabloid obliged in sensationalizing claims of atrocity. The Jesus Fellowship did not escape the muckraking of the tabloids. 
"The Jesus Fellowship accepted the reality that some that came into the community would not find a home, and that a few would leave with feelings of bitterness. But they did not see themselves as a part of the "cult" phenomenon. But the high profile recruiting and service presence of the Jesus Army in the streets of London made them an easy target for the anti-cultists and easy for the press to find. Like many groups that have been burned by bad publicity, the leadership of the Jesus Fellowship made a more-or-less conscious decision to avoid the press. Thus, for several years, claims that were made against them went unanswered and they unwittingly became a part of the "cult controversey" they hoped to avoid. 
"John Campbell, who is responsible for New Creation Christian Community's communications and public outreach, told us that the leadership now recognizes their withdrawal from engagement with the press was a tactical mistake. And, further, he believes it will take a long time for them to move beyond the lingering suspicions about unanswered charges. He believes that their public image has improved in some measure, but seems to recognize that they will continue to fight an uphill battle. For example, notes Campbell: 
"We consider ourselves to be a church without prejudice. We welcome anyone without any preconditions to our public meetings and basic church membership--drug addicts, gays, transsexuals, etc. However, if persons decide they want to take steps toward a deeper level of involvement, such as covenant membership, we have biblically grounded beliefs that guide our conduct. Deeper engagement can become problematic if individuals insisted on being a part of the group but refused to accept our beliefs and lifestyle. We recognize that this makes us potentially vulnerable to public criticism. Indeed, we have already been criticized, but that is something we will just have to live with. [personal interview] 
"What of controversy in the future? In time, all religious movements that survive experience a lessening of tension with the broader community in which they live. That process has probably begun with the Jesus Fellowship. At the same time, if tension diminishes too quickly, the product they bring to the broader will likely become less differentiable from other spiritual messages. The Wesleyians, who became Methodists, and the Salvation Army earlier occupied the same turf and experienced high tension with the broader culture for a long while. If the Jesus Army is to survive and become a significant movement in the U.K., and beyond, they will likely continue in tension with the broader culture for a good long while. "
William Kay in C. Partridge (ed), Encyclopedia of New Religions, a Guide (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2004)
"The Jesus Fellowship (also known as the Jesus Army) includes the New Creation Christian Community (NCCC). This community aspect is unusual in present-day Protestantism, and it is this, rather than any doctrinal innovation, that makes the Jesus Fellowship of particular interest.
...
"After criticism 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. It still maintains a form of mutual accountability and specfically seeks to safeguard biblically based differentiation of gender roles. 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."
C Peter Collinson: All Churches Great and Small
 
"Criticism has also come. In the mid-1980s, they were asked to leave the Evangelical Alliance and the Baptist Union because it was said they were isolationist, and had poor relationships with other churches. In recent years, they have sought to improve those relationships.
"They have also been criticised for being too authoritarian and legalistic, laying down rules too strictly. Their answer is that all they do is to encourage a simple lifestyle, that 'as God's covenant people they are called to be separated from the spirit of the world'. 
"Participation is voluntary, each person must decide for themselves, and they can leave at any time."
David V Barrett: The New Believers p. 227
"The way of life in Jesus Army communities has been described as austere. Everything is shared -- their money, their possessions, even sometimes their clothes. TV and radio are banned; only Christian music is allowed. Children are allowed few toys, and are given strict discipline, including corporal punishment, although the slipper has replaced the rod because of external criticism" [and that is no longer used either - John]
John Campbell (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A useful admission, given John's earlier attempt to give the impression that my references to the use of the rod, which had been a major concern of mine, were calculatedly misleading. I did ask John to clarify this in a section of its own, but he chose to ignore it.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That of course is your interpretation, and does not seem to me to be the clear meaning of the quote. John Campbell (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What WAS the meaning of the quote? Why group the three together like that?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy: Some quotes 

message: From John Everett (ex-member referred to above)
I confess that until my attention was recently drawn to the Jesus Army article, I was a Wikipedia virgin. I recently made edits to the article out of impulsive frustration at some of its content. In doing so, I was well aware that I was probably breaking conventions and guidelines: conventions and guidelines which, I regret, I haven't had the time to acquaint myself with. Ignorance is no excuse at law, and nor do I proffer it here as one...merely an explanation. If this has in any way insulted anyone who is a more experienced and dedicated Wikipedia contributor, then I do genuinely apologise!
I have tried to mug up very quickly on how Wikipedia works, and have also tried to get a flavour of the various debates that are going on concerning the article. I'm afraid this is the best I can do for now...my main responsibilities lie elsewhere!
This will be my one and only contribution to this talk section; so if it is slightly on the long side, please humour and bear with me.
The article, as it stands, makes no reference to the extensive commercial activities of the Jesus Army. The following information comes from the most recent financial statements held by Companies House (copies available for download from their website). There are a number of different firms which are classified as 'subsidiary undertakings' of House of Goodness Ltd. Their consolidated turnover in the financial year to 31st December 2005 was £41,606,105 (41.5 million pounds). Gross profit was £4,669,583 (just over 4.6 million pounds). 
The Chairman of House Of Goodness Ltd. is named on the return as Noel Stanton.
The ‘parent undertaking’ and ‘controlling related party’ of House of Goodness is The Jesus Fellowship Community Trust.
Consider the following as points of information:
1) The guiding philosophy behind the Fellowship's businesses is "robbing the Kingdom of the World to give to the Kingdom of God". This is explained in the Jesus Army Flame pamphlet entitled "Wealth Creation For Jesus"
2) 'Charitable Giving' (tax deductable) from the House of Goodness group of companies in the period referred to above was £415,000. This comprised a payment of £365,00 to the Jesus Army Charitable Trust and £50,000 to the Jesus Fellowship Life Trust
3)'Heartcry Ventures Ltd.’ has the Jesus Army Charitable Trust as its parent undertaking. Heartcry Ventures principal activity is (was) licencing the Deco Theatre in Northampton (part of The Jesus Centre).
4) In the Northampton Chronicle and Echo (31st Jan 2007) it was reported that Heartcry Ventures/The Jesus Army Charitable Trust owed the management firm ‘Incentive FM’ £300,000. In spite of this, Heartcry Ventures did not apply for public funding and it turned down three different rescue packages from Incentive FM. Instead, with the debt to Incentive FM outstanding, the theatre was closed and Incentive FM staff were made reduntant.
Reference to facts such as these concerning the business complex and ethic of the Jesus Army ought to appear in any article about them.
Concerning doctrinal "orthodoxy": there is a problem here...the difference between what is written down and what is taught orally. Only those who have had a close association with the Jesus Army will be familiar with the 'core doctrines'. These are referred to within the Jesus Army as 'Kingdom Secrets' and, by definition, are not meant to be disclosed to outsiders. It follows, therefore, that it will only be ex-members like myself who are truly in a position to challenge these 'teachings'...but our opinions are apparently not credible because of our ex-member (apostate) status. Talk about a Catch 22 situation!
So what should the article include? Well, how does this sound as a suggestion?
"Criticisms of the Jesus Army over the years have included allegations that married couples are forced to sleep in single beds and children are beaten with rods. These were aired in the 'Dial Midnight' TV show in December 1992. John Campbell, the Jesus army spokesman denied there was any truth to them."
Also:
"A website was set up by an ex-member in 2001 to challenge various public statements made by the Jesus Army and to distribute his own story."
What is non-encyclopaedic about either of the above statements?
Finally, and this IS personal, why have I bothered working through the night to compose this statement? Earlier this year I was contacted by someone (X) who had been in the Jesus Army for many years and had recently left. X told me that he/she had been given no money on leaving and was unable to claim benefit as the Jesus Army elders had told the benefits office that X was still a community member. I myself made a long journey to give X money that I could scarcely afford at the time. To say I was angry at the situation X had been put in would be putting it mildly.
This, I understand, is of little relevance to Wikipedia per se. But it maybe explains the concern that some of have to ensure that the Jesus Army article does not end up being so 'non-controversial' that it describes a Jesus Army totally alien from the one which many of us have experienced, both as ex-members and as current observers.
With this, I sign out!
(JohnHEverett (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that John. I need to ask an admin for help re the business details. It would be easy to draw inferences that may not be justified. Most of your other points are either primary sources (the pamphlets), original research (the Kingdom Secrets), too vague (allegations have included...When? By Whom?) or anecdotal (X). I am truly sympathetic, but Wikipedia cannot work in any other way. We need to have reputable sources for anything that goes in the article. Rumiton (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned about the 'X' story and if there is anything that needs resolving, please let me know. John Campbell 11:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further reflection, and enquiries, make we wonder about this. What exactly might the Jesus Army say to the Benefits Agency that would stop benefits, in any case? I hope John has not be subject to a scam through a hard luck story. He certainly wouldn't be the first. For the record, I know that we have not turned down any requests for assistance or refund of capital from long standing members on leaving community since our current system was set up many years ago. In 2006, for example, (last complete year) we paid £22,000 in assistance to people leaving community, on top of £177,991 refund of capital contributions previously made. John Campbell 12:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In terms of the HVL trading company, I should say that our independent expert legal advisers told us in no uncertain terms that it would have been illegal for us to pursue any of the 'three different rescue packages'. As I was reported in the local paper as saying: "We [HVL] relied on money to come in from the shows via Incentive FM but there was no money coming in. Because of this it became impossible to continue as a commercial venture." Consequently HVL had no option whatsoever but to go into liquidation. There is more I could say, but I don't think this is the place for it. John Campbell 11:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As I stated earlier, the teachings of the Jesus Army are totally open and published, with references given above. there are no 'hidden' or 'secret' teachings, except in the sense of 'unappreciated' or 'unwelcome' that Jesus used in Matthew 11:25 and Mark 4:11 John Campbell 11:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Your suggested sentence "A website was set up..." while almost certainly not an intentional ploy, would be seen as an attempt to use Wikipedia to link to a non-reputable source. Find neutral sources and we can go with them. Rumiton (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone tell me (via sources) when the JA was readmitted to the EA, and under what circumstances? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia administration tells me that the above business information cannot be used for any controversial purpose as Company House is a primary source. Someone qualified in company finance law would need to look at the statements and figures and tell us (the world) what they mean. They would then be our secondary source and we could quote them. Rumiton 13:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JA Business deals and other matters 

message: Why, when even John Campbell's own evidence points to the JA having resigned over issues of isolationism and after they would not discuss issues of praxis about which the alliance had concerns, does the re-write make it sound as if they resigned only because other churches had threatened to leave if they didn't? Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is ever set in stone, all is up for discussion. I am trying to understand the problems. That's what you get with a neutral editor, we're kind of ignorant. What were the "issues of praxis?" What kind of "isolationism?" And of course, the dreaded...sources. Rumiton 13:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, am getting the hang of this now and here's a promise: no more posting from me until I have spent a night rooting through the loft for some evidence. I feel a renewed vigour. :)  Bristol Sycamore 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is of course the considered judgement of some neutral academic authors that much of the criticism (not all of which was by any means truthful, by the way) was 'because it was fashionable to label things cults' as pete puts it. See sources. John Campbell 11:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, John, when I had my meeting with Mick Temp, last year, in the presence of honest brethren/elders who can confirm this to you (email me for names) I challenged him to cite anything at all in my pamphlet which had been untrue. He confimed, "None of it, but it wasn't helpful". John Everett and I recognised the importance of seeing to it that members of the JA would recognise the criticisms the pamphlet contained as being their experience, because ultimately this was the only way that you would hear us. The purpose of Prayerforce was to force change in the JFC, which would not tolerate difference of opinion from members. We didn't want to trash you, we wanted you to become less cultic, which was why we sought to negotiate through the EA, subsequently. Dave Hawker told me subsequently that he had urged Noel to meet with us and that it had been this disobedience on his part which started their dispute.Bristol Sycamore 14:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Does this mean you are accepting Fire in our Hearts as a valid source? John Campbell 09:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, touche! No. I don't like it as a source, but as it is being used as one anyway and as you are unlikely to contest its credibility, I thought I'd quote it, as it supports my contention, albeit in an unflattering way. I don't recognise its perception of the events of the 80's, especially those I had a part in, and I disapprove of your church's representation of DH's ousting. Bristol Sycamore 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just in case anyone looks up the Freethinker article, although it is written by a John Campbell, he is not me and there is no connection! John Campbell 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a lot of work, but there is no deadline. Take your time. I'll look over the latest stuff tonight.  Rumiton 04:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Rumiton. That's a relief.Bristol Sycamore 10:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I would be unhappy to see is Pete's criticisms being given an over-prominent place simply because of his involvement in this process. Equally, the history of the Jesus Army is just that, history, and dates back some 20 years. We do need to ensure that the article brings us up to date, and represents the considered views of outsiders. John Campbell 11:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well naturally you would John. God forbid that anyone who actually knows what went on at Bugbrooke should be allowed to speak. But what you have to contend with is that the quotes above are in reference not to my conerns, but the EA's and BUs, the two organisations you frequently pointed to as evidence that you were orthodox and in good relationship with the rest of evangelical christendom, both of whom expelled you.Bristol Sycamore 14:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Pete's "criticisms" don't get any place in the article at all, as he is not neutral, but if he makes us aware of neutral sources we need to look at what they say. Rumiton 12:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As regards HISTORY, it is our shared history and some of us resent you re-writing it, John. If the church has repented of past mistakes, changed policy and doctrine to accommodate the criticisms (or to avoid further criticism in the same vein)etc it cannot be a NEW/different church unless it stops denying the prior existence of past policy and teaching and acknowledges the hurt they caused; and stops denigrating leavers as if we were people who never fitted in, unstable, obsessive, proud, incapable of living the higher way etc. Your people can't be a "new man" without repenting the old man ;) Bristol Sycamore 14:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete, I object to your claim that I am rewriting history. I have attempted to confine my comments to providing NPOV sources and have not denigrated you or any other leaver. I certainly have not described you as (in your words) "unstable, obsessive, proud"! John Campbell 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, your rewrite of the paragraph which had been quite muddled was very fair I thought (if you intend to leave it that way). The JFC has clearly, from what you say anyway, changed many of the policies which vexed those of us who left in the 1980s. Naturally you do not wish your more cultic history to be emphasised in an article which should be ostensibly about the present day incarnation of the church. But the two cannot be wholly divorced, partly because you still have the same leaders and partly because you continue to deny aspects of the past which both you and I know to have been true in the past. If you are denying things we both know to have been true, how confident can I be that you have really changed? You see my problem?Bristol Sycamore 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As regards denigration, thank you, but I didn't accuse you personally of doing that. Indeed, I think it would be against wiki rules. No, that particular accusation was made by Noel Stanton when he rang the minister of the church I joined after Bugbrooke to urge him to silence me. If needs be, I might be able to get him to confirm this in a letter. It was common practice (I don't know about these days) to rubbish critics to the media, an employer (in one case, I recall) and our subsequent clergy: we are usually dubbed mentally unstable, unreliable,(a pervert in my case, on one occasion!), etc, whatever it is hoped will make us less credible. Please don't take everything I say personally, John. I don't think I even knew you when I was a member and have no wish to attack you. Bristol Sycamore 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EA and the re-write about labelling/ Baptist Union / Isolationism 

message: Rumiton: Would it be appropriate to split this talk page & archive some of the older discussion. It's getting unwieldy now. I did see an automated notice earlier suggesting we did that but it has gone away. John Campbell (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A robot (bot) will come cruising by soon and automatically archive it. If it doesn't, we should. Rumiton (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing yet, but if you click on "edit this page" edit this page. It gives a boxed message at the top: "This page is 216 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance." Can I suggest we set up a bot such as Miszabot to move sections that are receiving no further comments over a period of, say, a month. It really is getting unwieldy. Comments, anyone? John Campbell 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK folks, Rumiton said earlier that "if it doesn't we should", Pete and other editors have said nothing further, so if you say nothing, I will do it. I can't cope with the length of this page. John Campbell (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving? 

message: There are a number of relevant quotes in the section above. In addition, if we are dealing with faniancial integrity (is that what the issue is?):
Hadden: A group of senior leaders have overall responsiblity for the church, but they do not constitute an administrative elite. They meet regularly to conduct the business of the church and community, but they hold other jobs and do not reside in the same locale. The basic financial structure for the Jesus Fellowship community is a Trust Deed created by the membership in 1979 for the benefit of members and the collective community. "The Trust Fund receives the possessions and capital of the members, and the Trustees are required to administer the Trust in such a way as to maintain the capital value of these contributions" [Source: Campbell and Bird, p 11]. The Trustees also have oversight of the "Common Purse" into which all income is pooled and dispersed.
Chryssides: p.154 "Joining a community entails handing over all one's wealth and possessions. However, there is a corollory to this: if someone who joins is in debt, the church may sometimes pay off what is owed, to enable the seekeer to participate fully in the community's activities"
Barrett, The New Believers, p229: the Jesus Army is careful with both members and money. New members have to live in a community for a probationary period for two years, and must be over 21, before being allowed to commit themselves to full community membership. Community members donate all their money to the Community Trust Fund; if they later leave teh Community; their capital is paid back, sometimes with interest. The Community keeps its running expenses and capital completely separate, and has its accounts audited by the international firm PricewaterhouseCoopers [now Grant Thornton]. 
Kay: [p.89] On commitment to the community (which take place after a probationary period of between one and three years) members surrender tehir possessions for collective use but may reclaim them should they subsequently ddecide to leave. Those who do not wish to live within the community may remain covenant members while living in their own homes and earning money outside the community. in a sense they operate like Christians who attend a particularly close-knot Sunday congregation... The community has founded a series of Christian businesses employing some 250 people. Profits from the businesses help fund the wider work of the Jesus Fellowship. Community houses are owned by a trust fund ultimately controlled by the members.
Newell [p.132]: The businesses are owned and controlled by teh community through the Trustees, to whom they are accountable... The businesses, community houses and assets (such as ehicles) are administered through a non-charitable trust fund with trustees accountable to its members. All members are on an equal footing and none has special financial priveleges or incentives. the senior pastor, Noel Stanton, has the same standard of living as other residential members and shares his life and house (the farm) with all manner of people.
Sufficent?
John Campbell (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Businesses and finances - more quotes 

message: Barker: New Religious Movements (HMSO, London, 1989) p184ff
The Jesus Army, with its slogan ‘Love, Power & Sacrifice’ and its promise to fight for YOU, was inaugurated in 1987. Its members, wearing combat-style uniforms, can be seen travelling around the country in converted double-decker buses and taking part in marches, festivals, residential camps and ‘Eat, Drink and Pray’ campaigns of all-night evangelism in Central London. 
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
[pp.39ff]
Almost fanatical in its proselytization, the Jesus fellowship gained a high profile in British cities. It took some years however, for the community to develop to the extent that it could systematically set about its goal of evangelizing the poor and those outside of mainstream society through the Jesus Army. By the mid 1970s [wrong date: probably should be “mid 1980s”], the fellowship felt sufficiently strong enough to undertake evangelism in urban areas, and households were felt large and secure enough to absorb newcomers from the streets who might be both disturbed and disturbing as the result of drug and alcohol abuse. The farm at Nether Heyford is the most successful example of this outreach, housing several dozen, mainly “underclass” people….
As an evangelizing church, the Jesus Fellowship runs the normal programs of any other “New Church”, alongside those it has initiated of its own. There is evangelism through streetwork (along with colorfully-painted double-decker coaches), marquee campaigns, local initiatives, church-planting, renewal weekends, and “celebration rallies” (alternatively referred to as “Praise-Days”). Many of these “celebration” activities attract several thousand people and tend to be calculated to appeal to the contemporary “rave” culture, complete with light shows and rock music, of a younger generation…
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.
Hadden
The outreach ministries of the Jesus Fellowship operate under the name Jesus Army. This name was at least partially inspired by the Salvation Army which was established in East London in second half of the nineteenth century. (See the Salvation Army Profile Page on this site). The name and the commitment to social services parallel the organization created by William and Catherine Booth in 1865. While members do not uniform, suggesting a further likeness to the military symbolism of the Salvation Army, the male street evangelists usually wear jackets that bear a resemblance to battle fatigues. [insert picture] 
There are other resemblances. The Jesus Army focuses its evangelism towards the more down and out members of society. The group is composed of persons coming from many backgrounds, but like many of the Booth's recruits, a significant proportion are from working-class backgrounds. Many in the Jesus Army have experienced homelessness, problems with drug and alcohol abuse, and some are ex-prisoners. 
But the Jesus Army has a distinctive modern-day character. While there is a good bit of discipline in this group they do not have the visible appearance of uniformed Salvation Army workers marching in step. When they work a large crowd, they stand out because of the blazing fluorescent pink crosses around their necks and the colorful Jesus Army logos that are sewn on their bright battle fatigue jackets. Were it not for these visible symbols, many in the Jesus Army blend right in with the down-and-outs they seek to reach with the Gospel and the offer of a hot meal. The Jesus Army is almost certainly best known to London and in other cities around the UK by their brightly painted Modern Jesus Army minibuses and similarly adorned double-decker buses. 
Much of the success and drawing power of the Jesus Army is their ability to create revival services that combine the old-time religion with contemporary entertainment -- disco lights, music, dancing and a high emotional tone. People are frequently touched by the Holy Spirit and exhibit a wide array of emotions from laughter to tears. These lively revival services are clearly unconventional by traditional worship practices in most British churches. 
William Kay in C. Partridge (ed), Encyclopedia of New Religions, a Guide (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2004).
The Jesus Army (which has similarities with the early Salvation Army) is the evangelistic expression of the Jesus Fellowship. The Army is noted for vibrant street evangelism, concern for marginalized and homeless people, for its vigorous and noisy praise and worship, its publication Streetpaper and its linkage with more than 40 other independent Christian churches in the Multiply Network. Rootless people who respond to the Jesus Army's communication of the gospel may find the Jesus Fellowship's community care especially attractive.
John Campbell (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Stephen J. Hunt is a respected academic and author who has two relevant sources I had overlooked earlier. Both should probably be included on the main page. They are the one listed above and S. Hunt, Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003) John Campbell (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outreach activities - quotes 

message: The Jesus Centres in Coventry and Northampton, offering help to people of all faiths and none, are an important part of our current work. A new centre is to open in London shortly. However, they have not yet reached the pages of academic sources, so the best I can offer is a number of news media links. is this the best format?
becoming a clean and new person
Church opens its door to clubbers
Opening of Northampton Jesus Centre
Plans for Northampton Jesus Centre
Open Doors ex-offenders project wins award
Coventry Jesus Centre shortlisted for award
Coventry Evening Telegraph
Coventry Evening Telegraph
Coventry Lord Mayor tucks in
Northampton Mayor joins in
Northampton Mayor shows off hedgehogs
There are more along the same line, but these should suffice
John Campbell (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Centres - quotes 

message: Please could some source be provided which would show what proportion of the covenanted members have celibate status as against those who married while members of the community? Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  back to celibacy 

message: Newell in Charismatic Christianity [p.130]
"JF is the only new church stream that advocates and practices celibacy for those called to it, claiming it leads to a full life for single people. There are couples and celibates, male and female, and JF claims both as high callings. A main justification for celibacy, following St Paul, is that it frees a member for ministry, particularly in the unsocial hours that Jesus Army campaigning requires. Critics have maintained that JF teaches celibacy as a better or higher way and that single brothers and sisters are pressurized into the vow, though I have not myself seen any evidence of this."
Hunt, Steven 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) [p.36]
"Celibacy is a distinct form of covenant. In fact, the Jesus Fellowship is the only “New church” stream in Britain that advocates and practices celibacy for those felt called to it. A prospective celibate must be over 21 years old and initially enters a probationary year before undertaking the commitment, which is assumed to be for life. The decision is sealed with a vow and taken as seriously as the ordinances of a monastic order.
	"The formal justification for celibacy is biblical, and is based upon the Pauline injunction that the single life allows more dedication to Christ. It follows that the celibate has no other distractions, allowing a greater dedication to evangelism and freeing a member for ministry, particularly in the unsocial hours that the Jesus Army campaigning requires, that is, evening missions in inner-city areas. For the Jesus Fellowship, celibacy is “a gift of God for the church, enabling men and women to live undiluted and undistracted lives for Him.” Celibacy, however, is not seen as superior to marriage. Both are regarded as high callings. Neither does celibacy constitute a form of segregation. Although celibates have their own meeting for moral support, in the community context, couples and celibates live side by side."
Chryssides: [p162]
"Equally important in contributing to the Jesus Army’s distinctive identity is their community living, their common sharing of possessions, their commitment to a life of poverty and, in may cases, celibacy. Although some forms of Christianity such as Roman Catholicism have their monastic orders, monasticism is only one wing of this branch of the Church.. Christianity, especially in most of its Protestant varieties, has been world-affirming, and, apart from the clergy, members have combined their Christian faith with secular employment and living within a ‘fallen’ world. In a world where ‘serial monogamy’ is the norm and in churches where marriage and family life are the most highly favoured forms of human relationship, a religious community with different ideals seems an oddity. Having said this, members of the Jesus Army will often point to the fact that the mainstream Christian denominations’ emphasis on the family, such as advertising ‘family services’, serves to exclude those for whom family life is not the norm: the single, the homeless, the divorced and so on. By insisting on practising a radical expression of Christianity, and energetically promoting it, the Jesus Army certainly presents a form of the Christian faith which mainstream Christians are bound to find disconcerting."
With regard to sex & marriage, let me just say in response to Pete that our view is (and has always been) not intrinsically different from that expressed by the Roman Catholics. God’s purposes are creative, and so sexual relations should be within the context of a stable, committed marriage between a man and a woman, with the possibility of procreation. In recent years we have softened our line on this (and many other things), so we would now say something like, ideally there should be the possibility of procreation, bearing in mind the responsibilities of the couple and other relevant issues.
John Campbell (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that clarification, John, which would seem to bear out what I had said anyway, that sex should be for procreation and that, as we "persecutors" always said, you eschew the use of contraception. That being the case, except for procreation, you would expect ALL members to remain celibate (to abstain from sex). The allegation in the 1980s was (and this is what should be in parentheses in the article, where celibacy is mentioned):
........ "All members are expected to abstain from sex except for married couples trying for a baby". As regards Celibate status, the allegation was that "strong pressure was placed on single people to commit to life-long singleness and abstinence from sex, marriage being taught as the 'lower way' ".Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That isn't what I said at all. John Campbell (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have to clarify then, John. You said "so sexual relations should be within the context of a stable, committed marriage between a man and a woman, with the possibility of procreation" For there to be the possibility of procreation, there must be no contraception, and unless you are intending to have children as a consequence of every incident of coitus, one must expect that marrieds will have to abstain from sexual intercourse. JA families are unusually large, but all the same.... Abstenance is the desired policy, isn't it?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For instance, "We see the biblical ideal as no contraception. There can easily be a lustful aspect to contraception" Noel Stanton in Buzz, April 1986 Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celibacy & marriage - quotes