Talk:Jesus Army/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Barmy Army

..."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)]

Contested neutrality

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)

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)

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)

Neutrality of this page

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)

Shouldn't the only reference source in the article be disallowed on the grounds that it was published by Multiply Publications, the Jesus Army's own publisher and therefore breaks the Wikipedia rules on "self-serving" sources? Bristol Sycamore 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you be happier if the Source was quoted as the first edition, published by Kingsway?

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)

I think some of the External Links which meet Wikpedia standards probably ought to be listed as Sources themselves, which would help restore the balance. Ben Cruachan 09:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Seen by some as a cult

Please don't write vague statements like this. Who are the "some"? Do you have sources for people who say this? If so, include the sources, not the vague statement. The import of the statement you made is "I think they're a cult, so I'm saying some think it, because I think others will agree". But we write articles about others' stated views, not what we think their views would be. James James 00:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll include sources. I think its misleading that wikipedia has a page on this group that is mostly written by John Cambell; the spokesman for the organisation.

Actually, not mainly written by me at all. I've respected the NPOV principle. --John Campbell 10:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange, that just doesn't tally with the history page at all. You currently have 17 of the 50 most recent edits, meaning that you have made a third of the most recent changes. You, for example, added both of the images on this page, and several other edits that have shaped important parts of this page. Saying that you've not written much of this is an obvious lie. --CalPaterson 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Even on the basis of your argument, that doesn't make the page "mostly" written by me. That is, unless 17 is most of 50. But more to the point, my edits do not form a major part of the page, (with the possible exception of the two photographs). I don't think calling me a liar is fully within the ethos of Wikipedia, either. --John Campbell 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

News clippings from Northamptonshire local newspapers referring to the Jesus army group as a cult/sect:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/jesus_army/jesus_army6.html

http://www.rickross.com/reference/jesus_army/jesus_army9.html

A clipping reporting a sex offence prior to involvement with the Jesus Army is not the most balanced way to show that one of the local newspapers referred to the Jesus Army as a cult in 1992.--John Campbell 13:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.rickross.com/reference/jesus_army/jesus_army1.html

For now, I feel I have justification to put the statement back. --CalPaterson 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry no. You simply cannot say "Some say it is a cult". What you can say is that your local paper says so. That is hardly introductory material. It would belong in a section on criticisms. James James 00:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just added a criticism section to appease you. I would rather that you adjust edits in future, rather than wiping them. Please make an effort to *adjust* and then post on the talk page. I'm hoping you like it; I'll probably be back early tomorrow morning to view your response. --CalPaterson 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like your tone. I adjusted the article by removing a completely unsourced piece of POV pushing. I put it on the talk page and asked you for sources. You are appeasing Wikipedia's policies, not me. I refer you to this. I've rewritten your criticism section to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Please try to avoid commentary and stick to saying what people's views are.James James 01:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Proselytism v. Evangelism

The word proselytism has been substituted for evangelism in a couple of places in this article. It seems to me that "proselytism" ought to be regarded as a word to avoid, as the Wikipedia article on proselytism states: "the connotations of the word proselytism are almost exclusively negative." Selecting this word over evangelism seems to be advancing a particular point of view and hence against NPOV.--John Campbell 10:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That the connotation of the word is negative changes nothing to the fact that it is the correct technical word to describe the activities of the group. Similarly, "reactionnary", "racist" and some other words have a technical meaning which can be appropriately used according to the context. "Proselytism" would be pejorative in a general context, but not in the context of a religious group which aggressively advocates its beliefs. Rama 11:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As Words to Avoid states: "Some terms are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint ... Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint -- that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". Most pejorative terms work this way, and many can cite wide usage." In any case, I'm not convinced that "proselytism" is more technically correct than "evangelism". Can you justify this? Does the use of the word "proselytism" reflect your view, or does it come from a quotable source? Equally, what is your source for "aggressively"?--John Campbell 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Although you seem to suggest that "racist" would be an acceptable description of, say the Ku Klax Klan, it is a word specifically listed to avoid as being "technically accurate but carrying an implied viewpoint"--John Campbell 13:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, if your reading of the policy is that "racist" should not be applied to the Ku Klux Klan, you should reconsider. Rama 15:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I understand it, that is what Words to Avoid specifically says. Words to Avoid disapproves of stating "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization" and approves "The KKK is a body that has advocated white supremacism and anti-semitism", as found in the KKK article. But the use of the word racism is of course not the main point under discussion, and I would welcome your response to my previous questions. --John Campbell 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "proselytism" in its current wikipedia page would suggest that this word would be a reasonable one to descibe this organisation.

"The English language word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'pros' (towards) and the verb 'erchomai' (to come). It generally describes attempts to convert a person from one point of view to another, usually in a religious context."

As it is currently, both words are used on the page. This seems fine, I think both are applicable. --CalPaterson 20:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would refer you again to the portion of the article I quoted at the start of this section: "the connotations of the word proselytism are almost exclusively negative." Or, read the article further and see how "illicit proselytism" is contrasted with "legitimate evangelisation". However, I am really just canvassing views. --John Campbell 22:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have much knowledge of Jesus Army that I wish to contribute (But cannot due to it being personal research). I would agree that while proselytism is most certainly technically correct, it's implications (Regardless of whether they are true) are not based on a NPOV. Although rephrasing it is hard, it is absolutely neccessary. They use openly aggressive tactics, however. I have seen the Jesus Army try to convert my bus driver, use love bombing in a mosh pit and target my now deceased 80-year old grandfather who was at the time senile.

I would contribute to the article, but my negative feelings would come across. 782 Naumova 11:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits made by Jesus Army

The IP address 195.157.239.65 [1] belongs to Jesus Fellowship Church (Jesus Army) and has edited this page - on occasions removing links and information that is critical of them.

Or possibly untrue misinformation. Certainly unsourced. --John Campbell 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A good point. I've re-added the information with sources. I trust the Church will allow this article to be NPOV by giving both sides of what it is a controversial organisation (that I'm sure still does a lot of good for vulnerable people).

I hope my edit of this is balanced and appropriate --John Campbell 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP address 217.155.51.62 [[2]] made edits again part of the Jesus Fellowship IP range edited the article. Mike33 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FuchsiaShockz, Editor Fuchsiashockz and The Jesus Army

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)

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)

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)

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)

Blogs and Personal pages

I believe Wiki policy is that blogs and personal pages should not be used as sources WP:SPS. With that in mind, is there any justification for a link to a blog, which in any case appears to be pushing a POV? The moribund link to jeanni also seems suspect in this respect. Ben Cruachan 14:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for JEANNI, but I would point out that it is included, as is the ja-1984 reference, as an external Link, rather than as a referencing source.

The suggestion, also, that blogs push a POV, while the JA (fronted by John Campbell) does not is false. This is quite clearly an example of an organisation with a clear Public Relations remit using what is supposedly a neutral medium to promote its own agenda.Bristol Sycamore 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I have unintentionally contravened the ethos of Wikipedia. As I said above I had hoped that my edits would be seen as balanced and helpful. I am committed to Wikipedia demonstrating a NPOV. John Campbell 09:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This needs approaching in accordance with Wikipedia policy, which is why I referred to WP:SPS. As I said, this policy refers to sources rather than external links, but is there an equivalent policy 9page for external links? Ben Cruachan 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe so, Ben, though those keen to emphasis the JA POV may wish to tread lightly on this point, given that the only listed reference source is a book published by Multiply Publications, which is the publishing arm of the Jesus Fellowship itself. And Wikipedia DOES have a rule about this.Bristol Sycamore 14:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I could point you to a number of other published reference sources, if you wish, that are quite unconnected with the Jesus Army. John Campbell 09:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Me too, John. I started compiling some yesterday, but I do hope that if I do go to the trouble, they won't just be edited out. I do know you try to be decent about this, but I can't help fearing that all the effort will be for nought. We both know that considerably more concern has been raised over the years than your implied mere press muck-raking. It really isn't fair JA being able to leave the impression that it has only ever been a mainstream Christian group, when we both know that in the past you went out of your way to distance yourself from the rest of Christendom, etc . Can I be assured that if I provide evidence you will not remove it? -Peter Eveleigh Bristol Sycamore 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I obviously don't agree with your perceptions, Pete, nor am I keen that your most recent blog appears to be mainly an attack on my integrity. I certainly don't think your POV is neutral and almost wonder if you ought to regard yourself as disqualified from contributing! In any case I hope that this article can be edited by all concerned with due respect for Wikipedia principles. My comment about other sources was meant in all seriousness. Professor Hadden listed a bibliography at the end of his web page, which might prove a useful start. John Campbell 16:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are being unnecessarily confrontational, John. Far from being an attack on your integrity, I went to some trouble to emphasise your efforts to be decent about the whole thing. What I did however do was point out that you could hardly be considered neutral when you are the JA's PR man...and when, what's more, you have done your best to give the impression that there has been no legitimate concern about your church. With respect, I also think you rather inflate your importance in my blog; as far as I recall you are only mentioned in a single entry. If you read any more you'd know that it was motivated by my desire to draw a line under my experiences, and is largely conciliatory. The reason I am unwilling to walk away at this point is that having had a part in the story you are telling, I feel aggrieved that you are misrepresenting it. I think it would be quite possible to come up with a neutral account which acknowledges those parts of the past you would rather were not mentioned.

Also, I don't ask you to agree with my perception, John. I only ask you to acknowledge that there is more than one side to any story. The fact is that we each have a point of view. Mine is no less neutral than yours; or by the same token, I am no more biased than you are - though it could be argued that you have a greater vested interest in how the story is presented; I have little to lose, one way or the other. Bristol Sycamore 12:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Published reference sources – a list i collated some time ago (some may be worth consideration). Did i read mention of wikipedia principles?, integrety? I'm sure sneaking in your own non-npov edits to this wikipedia entry under the guise of adding a separate link would be greatly frowned upon, and you should regard yourself disqualified from editing ANY wikipedia entries further John. WP:EQ Mike Aldrich 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would stand by that edit, although I allowed you to revert it. Your archives are selected, or have you changed the basis for inclusion? "Assume good faith" is one of the key principles. John Campbell 07:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that pretty much the problem here, John, that you "allowed" things to appear here, or not?Bristol Sycamore 12:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike has a good point, he has a large archive of references to the JA and I think you disparage his criteria for selecting them unfairly, John. My impression is that he collates everything that comes his way, whatever its point of view. His list includes at least 15 of your own publications, which hardly makes him biased. I'd be curious to know if your bibliography, John, includes any of the cult books he refers to (which have cited the JA as a cult)?Bristol Sycamore 13:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Editorialising

"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)

Quite! I was thinking the same. However it does touch on the JA's attitude towards its relief of need work, which we have to understand is not about relief of need, per se, but provides an opportunity to evangelise. The event in the documentary (referred to) where a young man who fails to be sufficiently receptive to the message is dumped back on the streets and told not to return is a case in point.Bristol Sycamore 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bristol Sycamore = Pete Eveleigh

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Likening non-community life of JA members to the Anglican church!

"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)

Pete, please attempt to show some respect for the principles of NPOV John Campbell 16:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Corporal Punishment

Particularly in view of the government's recent decision not to ban smacking altogether in the UK, it would be useful if a JA representative could clarify their position over corporal punishment: is the use of the rod on juniors and the wooden spoon on infants still advocated?Bristol Sycamore 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to review what was actually alleged in the 1989 TV programme to which you refer, and Noel Stanton's comments in response as reported in the local papers [3]. (The report is a fair portrayal of the programme, which I have re-watched) It's by no means what you have posted in the article here:

Another former member, who spent six months in the community with her daughter, says the church encouraged her to discipline her child. 'They decided I should start rodding her if she was naughty - with a long piece of bamboo. But I didn't do that.'... Mr Stanton admits the church recommends corporal punishment. A smack on the arm or the legs is suggested for children between the ages of two and five and the slipper can be added from time to time for older children, he says. But [Noel] urges: 'Do it with care and don't do it unless you have to and make sure everything is done in love and not anger.' Kettering Evening Telegraph 15 June 1989

John Campbell 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

John, you and I were there when the rod was used as the accepted means of punishment. I shall watch the programme again, as you suggest. Having been interviewed for it, I happen to have a copy. My recollection is that the use of "the rod" was referred to and Noel defended it. Are you arguing that the bamboo rod was not used, John, because you and both know that every household had them visible. I even think I have some video somewhere which shows it over the door. And I think I can lay my hands on something written by Dave Res talking about it?Bristol Sycamore 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC) (Sorry to interrupt your signature, John. I am not very good at the interspersing thing yet.) [moved for convenience - John]

Noel's tone seems to be softening here, whether for the benefit of the press or because the policy of the community was changing, I can't say, which is why I ask, above, whether you could clarify the point.Bristol Sycamore 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, just spotted something else you said above. If you read me again, I said, "which Noel Stanton defended on an Anglia TV documentary in June 1989 ([16]), after Northampton Social Services began investigating a claim of physical assault" I did not say that the programme itself said that there had been a social services intervention. I suppose i shall have to go and find the citation now.

John, if you are truly NPOV, you'd be trying to find this stuff yourself. If you were neutral, you'd have written about the JA's past, not making it necessary for me to do it. It is very tiresome, but if you will not be candid about the church's less savoury past, you make it necessary for someone to fill in the gaps. I'd hoped to leave all this behind, but it is hard when history is being revised.Bristol Sycamore 23:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I made no comment to suggest that your edit said that a Social Services investigation was mentioned in the programme, though I did read it that way. My quote above was taken from a review of that programme (following your reference), quoting material from the programme itself, and indicates the Fellowship's policy in 1989, which I will readily admit had changed over the years. I can find no reference to this purported Social Services investigation and I presume that if you find one, you would also want to report the outcome (if any) in a neutral manner.

Ok John, I'll look it out. I knew the woman in question (afterwards)and for some time she had a website, which would have been a useful source, but it seems to have gone now. Incidentally, you acknowledge a change in policy - when did the JFC stop using the rod and why, given that it was justified with the Bible?Bristol Sycamore 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

John, I have edited out the allegation about the Social Services until I can find the citation. Let me know if you find it first (in the interests of neutral POV). You seem to imply that there is a source for SS outcomes. Is that right? If so, perhaps we could look into this one, and I'll be happy to apologise if I mis-represented it.Bristol Sycamore 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It does appear to me that the article you are attempting to write is vastly overbalanced on the criticism section and needs energetic but neutral pruning. John Campbell 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not attempting to re-write the entire article. I am only contributing to the Criticism section, and it stands to reason that the Criticism section would be predominantly full of criticism. You are most welcome to fill out the other sections, which I see you have done with references. I am not attempting to overbalance the criticism section, just see to it that it fairly reflects the fact that there has been some, which you wouldn't have known when I first read it. The quote suggesting that there has only ever been muck-raking by tabloids was just about all that ws there.Bristol Sycamore 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"which I see you have done with references" Not me. John Campbell 09:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. Not yet got to grips with identifying authors. Fairly confident though that whoever thought it worth going to the trouble of sourcing references which show you in a good light will be members of the JA anyway.Bristol Sycamore 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

John, if you are going to prune could you clarify the fellowship's current positions on the items referred to in Crit section: corporal punishment, celibacy, lost salvation, etc, pleaseBristol Sycamore 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

in case there is any doubt..

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)

I have removed a libellous allegation made anonymously. If it is repeated I will ask for moderation.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see: Personal Allegations[[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristol Sycamore (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of Corporal Punishment policy needed

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)

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)

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)

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)

While the rodding policy may no longer be current, its mention is necessary as it goes to the concerns of critic in the 1980s. It is part of the history of opposition. The clarification is also useful here because it comes as an admission, where elsewhere it has been denied.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

The article as it stands seems to me to have multiple issues. It strikes me that it deviates from the encyclopedic approach, giving little information and majoring on the Criticism section.

A large proportion of the material, particularly, in the Criticism section is Original Research or not Verifiable, quoting self-published sources (such as the Prayerforce pamphlet), blogs (such as Pete Eveleigh's) and posts from forums.

When I started to edit here on Wikipedia, I was aware of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, but missed WP:COI. As the Jesus Army's webmaster, I guess I have a COI. Since I had that pointed out to me, I have refrained from editing here. However Pete Eveleigh has agreed that he finds it difficult or impossible to write from a NPOV, given his history of opposition to the Jesus Army (see above).

We both agree (or at least did at one stage) that what this page needs is a rewrite by a neutral editor. Any takers?

I have posted an attempt at an edit, indicating the portions that I am particularly concerned at in a user subpage, which is here: User:John Campbell/Jesus Army

John Campbell 12:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, John, it is largely immaterial whether your name appears on edits or not, when numerous other contributors here are also members of the JA, which is known for being a church within which members submit to Elders as a matter of course. In effect, others speak for you.

Nonetheless, I am glad you have taken on board the fact that you (if not all other JA members) have a COI, and are willing to address the issue. I shall read your article with interest (the courtesy of a reply to my email would have been nice, but I suppose this initiative is an acknowledgement). -PeterBristol Sycamore 12:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Having now read your alternative version (hadn't occurred to me to write an alternative article, but good idea), I think you more than highlight the point that I have been trying to make, which is that you are seeking to re-write the history of the church, expunging any unflattering material. The fact that I wrote the Prayerforce pamphlet does not make it an invalid reference, especially if someone else cites it, rather than me.

No John, it won't do. Yours is not the neutral alternative I suggested, but a cynical bit of revisionism. My idea is that it must be possible to arrive at something we can both be happy with, and while that is not the case, endless re-writings will prove necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristol Sycamore (talk • contribs) 13:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Pete, I haven't received any emails from you. Neither is it true that people here are speaking for me. As I suggested some weeks ago, please cool it. John Campbell 13:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

JOHN, Particularly since I offered to possibly accept your own re-writing of the article in my email, your silence came as a snub...along with this denial. Now that you have had the chance to check the facts with Tschaka, it would be nice if could now acknowledge that the offer was in fact made -Peter Bristol Sycamore 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You may find this hard to believe, but I have now discovered that when Tschaka forwarded your email to me, it was classified as spam. In any case, I don't think that would have been the way to deal with it, and the editorial attention assistance that the page is are now receiving is the far better solution.John Campbell 09:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I HAD writtten offering to consider a rewriting by you and it would be only reasonable to acknowledge it. I also think tht having implied that I had lied about contacting you ("Actually, Pete, I haven't received any emails from you. Neither is it true...") an apology would be more appropriate than an excuse.Bristol Sycamore 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise that I didn't check my spam folder for your email. Furthermore I apologise for any implied suggestion that you were lying. WP:AGF John Campbell 09:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, John. -PeterBristol Sycamore 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have your personal email. I sent it via Tschaka at your website's contact address. And you are the webmaster. Cool it, how? Only natural to feel irritable when genuine attempts at conciliation have been ignored, while you continue to patronise (typo edit)me here. If we can't arrive at something amicably in private, we must wash our dirty laundry here, which strikes me as unfortunate-Peter Bristol Sycamore 13:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC) -Peter Bristol Sycamore 13:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose that average Wikipedia readers even notice that there are discussion pages, so your having drawn attention to this by contesting neutrality has to be a good thing. It has to be useful to readers to appreciate that feelings run high where this church is concerned....and to ask themselves why that might be. Bristol Sycamore 13:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to have a go at neutral editing if you folk agree. I should warn, though, that the current article appears very unencyclopedic. A lot would have to go, the founder's epiphany (as described) and the claims, counter-claims and explanations especially. You might be left with something rather short, and based on references from respected sources only, something that none of you would be "happy" with, but with which you might perhaps be able to live. Rumiton 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And with no sentences ending in prepositions! (LOL) I'd be happy with anything that didn't leave the impression that the JA has always enjoyed an uncontroversial history, or that any controversy has been unjustified and easily dismissed as muckraking. Are you willing to state your interest in the JA; why, for instance, are you even a reader of this page? -Regards, PeterBristol Sycamore 14:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, you got me. I'm pedantic (the preposition thing) but I have no COI. I live in Australia, I never heard of the JA until this evening. I found this article by looking at someone else's talk page. But I have worked on several other articles about New Religious Groups and about Protestantism which interests me (esp Martin Luther.) I have found that every group has members, neutral or well-wishing ex-members and ex-members and opponents who are hostile. (There may be other categories.) I have also found there are neutral ways of acknowledging criticism that do not wound current members, nor outrage the disaffected (except for the truly rabid ones, who want nothing less than a hanging.) Sometimes the endless arguing and reverting process leaves people in a compromising mood. If that is the case I am happy to try to help. Rumiton 14:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pedantic too, Rumiton, so that preposition thing tickled me (no offense was intended). I am in a mood to compromise. I don't want a hanging. If anything, believe it or not, I landed in hot water with the Anti-JA brigade for being willing to go and talk to the JA last year [5]and for posting equivocal or even positive observations on a forum (which is why Brian inserted a bit about me re-joining). All I really object to now is the JA's revisionism; their ability to write off the past and silence anyone who remembers it differently. Bristol Sycamore 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The article as it stands does not abide by WP content policies, as to NPOV, and WP:V: many of the sources used are not acceptable (se WP:V#Sources), and there is an issue of undue weight. Think of the reader: Our readers want a neutral article on the subjects we present, nor a soapbox or an apologetic piece; for those they have blogs, personal web pages and the like. I can see that Rumiton is willing to lend a hand in this content dispute, so there is no need for my involvement here. If there is a need to protect the page for a few days to give editors some breathing space to bridge their differences, drop me a line in talk and I will oblige. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jossi. How about it folks? Shall we start? Rumiton 14:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, Rumiton. Am a little apprehensive, but yes please. -Peter Eveleigh Bristol Sycamore 14:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to show good faith in the meantime, I have removed my own editings.-Peter EveleighBristol Sycamore 15:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am more than grateful for your help (even if you prefer to not use prepositions to end sentences with). Thanks to both Rumiton & Jossi. John Campbell 09:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Sloppy grammar is something up with which I will not put." (Winston Churchill, who if he didn't say this, would have wished that he had.) I hope it can all be acceptable, Peter. Or at least better than the never-ending feuding. You can go back to the current version at any time if you don't like what happens, and Jossi is available for more experienced input.

So according to Wikipedia Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I wanted to show you an article I helped with on a group called Sahaj Marg, which was pared down to a "stub" due to the lack of reliable third-party sources. They seemed to be OK with that, but now I see the article has been permanently deleted. If agreement cannot be reached, maybe that is not a bad way to go. Rumiton 14:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see this article is now approaching stub length anyway. If any editor knows of neutral third party sources for existing or further information, this would be a good time to put them forward. In the meantime, the phrase a profound and intense spiritual episode or 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit' needs a look. These are promotional words, the words of believers. If the reader accepts this description of the experience the founder had, then everything he did after that becomes sanctified, which clearly is not the way an encyclopedia works. You could say that the founder claimed to have undergone a profound religious experience, but you will still need a reference. Since this down-tuned statement will be unlikely to be challenged, I think primary sources will probably be accepted here. But a source of some kind is needed. Rumiton 14:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere, Rumiton, that Wikipedia aims to achieve verifiability, not truth. I can understand that from an academic point of view, but I can't help feeling aggrieved that the experience of many will not be represented here, for no other reason than that we don't have a verifiable source to prove the validity of our claims. As regards, "claimed to have undergone a profound religious experience", I'd be happy with that. I'd be curious to know what sort of source would prove even that, though? -Peter Bristol Sycamore 15:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The primary reference would be in Noel Stanton's foreword to Fire in our Hearts on page 15, or as described by the authors on page 33and an acceptable wording might be "had an intense spiritual experience that he described as 'a baptism of fire'". Or, "had what he described as an intense spiritual experience'". I understand that is is best to use neutral words where possible, and "described" is probably more neutral than "claimed". I know this isn't a tertiary source, but I believe a primary source is acceptable under WP:V in an article about itself. The original edition of the book was published by a third party (Kingsway) if that makes any difference. I also quote some more academic sources below, if that is helpful. By the way, I don't read that as claiming a special revelation or "sanctifying everything else", indeed to quote "Exploring New Religions" by George D Chryssides (p.160) "Noel Stanton ... claims no special revelation that is not accessible to any other member".

C. Peter Collinson "All Churches Great and Small" p.78: "After a charismatic experience in 1969, he [Noel Stanton] led the Church into experiencing the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, and they grew in numbers quite dramatically."

David V Barrett "The New Believers" p.227 "The origins of the Jesus Army can be traced back to 1969, when baptist minister Noel Stanton and some members of his small church in Bugbrooke, Northamptonshire, were baptised in the Spirit and began spaking in tongues, healing, and preaching the gospel with new enthusiasm and effectiveness."

Chryssides "Exploring New religions" p.150 "Stanton himself describes how he received the 'baptism of the Spirit' several months later, while praying at his manse:

it was so intoxicating... [etc] quoted by Cooper & Farrant p.30" [p33 in the electronic version]

I hope this is helpful, but I will keep out if you prefer

John Campbell 17:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"had what he described as an intense spiritual experience'" would be close, but isn't it still subjective? Surely, he SAYS that he had such an experience. These sources may be more academic than others, but is the cited claim any more verifiable? -Peter EveleighBristol Sycamore 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"had what he described as an intense spiritual experience", would work, as we are attributing this to the person that made the statement. That followed by George Chryssides's, and David V. Barrett's cites, will suffice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you only have to claim something about yourself for it to be verified, then? He said he had the experience, so it is true? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he describes having had an experience?(my pedantry at work, I am afraid, but I think it is an important point - just because he describes the experience as so and so, does not mean that he HAD an experience at all - this is relevant to his claims to Prophet status)Bristol Sycamore 18:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"relevant to his claims to Prophet status". That's a new assertion to throw into the mixing pot. See my quote from Chryssides above re special revelation. John Campbell 09:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter, your frustrations no doubt have valid causes, but personal experiences are best expressed on blogs and forums. Wikipedia cannot go there. (That way madness lies.) Re the initial founder's experience, can we agree on "...had what he described as an intense spiritual experience" with Chryssides and Barret as refs? I understand it isn't perfect, but I think it treats the subject with neutral respect, and does not categorise his experience one way or the other. Rumiton 11:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it fire in our hearts will not be used as a reference, as it is wriiten by two elders in the jesus army.

If personal experiences are best expressed in blogs, why are you willing to accept Stanton's personal experience as having happened, without demanding verification? What John will be reluctant to acknowledge here is that Noel Stanton's annointing as a Prophet (which came, allegedly, from that spiritual experience) gives him near infallible status within the church. By all means say that he claimed to have had an experience which he said was powerful, but why be willing to endorse his authority, by implication, by not insisting on verification? Why accept two sources which only quote the same claim without verifiying it?

I know you want to treat it with neutral respect, but to quote it as fact, you are not being neutral, you are saying it happened, without evidence, which is not a luxury you will afford any claim I make (the Fire in Hearts Q is not mine, btw, but I endorse it)Bristol Sycamore 22:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What's more, the Cryssides quote makes it clear that Stanton was alone at the manse praying when this annointing of the Holy Spirit is meant to have happened to him. Cryssides', like all the other references, just takes Stanton's word for it.What Wikipedia rule allows this?Bristol Sycamore 22:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The wording you preferred was "claimed to have undergone..." Claimed is not a Wikipedia-friendly word, it has a negative ring. It may fall short of a word you might yourself use, but not short enough to push it into neutrality. Seems to me that "had what he described..." works OK. Many Wiki articles on spiritual groups and leaders use this or similar terms. It doesn't mean Wikipedia accepts or endorses the divinity of the experience, it is just saying he felt something which he labelled "divine." After all, we all feel things every day, it is up to us how we describe them. A Wiki article that describes the nature and activities of a group must let the group's record speak for itself, via reliable sources. No prompting. Rumiton 10:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds a double standard to me, that the feelings and experiences of the disaffected are invalid, while those who damaged them get their claims accepted wholesale. We are going round in circles and I am not sure you are really listening. I am sorry. It is absurd to say that because of Wiki rules, you are obliged to say that something happened because the religious group has said it happened, when the whole reason for wanting to delete everything I have written is that I can't provide adequate verification to prove any claim I make. As to "via reliable sources", what does their reliability matter if all they do is, like you, quote the dubious claims verbatim, without challenge? Didn't Jossi say that the article must not become an apology for the group?

Rumiton, would it be easier for you just to go ahead and write the whole article without waiting for agreement? I have a very bad feeling about the whole thing, and don't want to spend my whole life thinking about it and feeling frustrated as we wrangle over every sentence. Instead of arguing every point, perhaps there will be enough in it which represents the truth from where I stand to compensate for the compromise I am probably going to be forced to make. I reserve the right to be dissatisfied if I feel that the JA are just getting the PR respectability they seek by having the article on here in the first place. - Peter Bristol Sycamore 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just plain daft. The Jesus Army doesn't need to look for some kind of "PR respectability", whatever Pete may feel. The fact is that by far the majority of churches and Christian groups do not have the kind of issues with the church that Pete has, hence our membership of the Evangelical Alliance and local ministerial groups. I may be over-sensitive, but I don't like this Talk page being used for continual sniping. I am happy to let Rumiton (and Jossi, if necessary) get on with this, according to the well-established principles of Wikipedia. John Campbell 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your claim about the majority of churches is an absolutely extraordinary one - not least of all because most churches aren't even evangelical and the EA has quite a lot of churches in membership which are equally cause for concern; and EA membership does not imply universal approval among other members anyway! But then, as a atheist I am less concerned about what other churches feel about you than about the quite appalling number of people who have been damaged by you, one way or another of the years. By deleting links to people like me who do care about that, you do not stop our existence or negate the harm done.

As regards Rumiton getting on with this as he sees fit, that is precisely what I just suggested. In fact, that's what I thought was going to happen. I respect the fact that Rumiton hoped to achieve a consensus, bit by bit, but I don't think that is possible.Bristol Sycamore 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bristol Sycamore, you said: It is absurd to say that because of Wiki rules, you are obliged to say that something happened because the religious group has said it happened, when the whole reason for wanting to delete everything I have written is that I can't provide adequate verification to prove any claim I make. It may sound absurd, but it is not. It is actually quite simple: An article about Person X or Group Y, needs to be able to describe what Person X and Group Y say about themselves within the caveats established at WP:SELFPUB. Your personal views about Person X or Group Y, which you may have written in a blog, or personal web page, cannot be included in this article as per the caveats established in WP:SPS. Unless you are a recognized expert in this field, or your writings have been re-published or described in a secondary, reliable source, these cannot be included. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well as a matter of fact, most of the issues I have raised have indeed been included in other books (with citations to me), Like Spying in Guruland, for instance. But that isn't the point. The simple fact is that none of the claims I included in the Criticism section Were personal opinion. They all included newspaper articles, etc. None of my blog material was included in the article. Also, the pamphlet which everyone is so keen to dismiss was mentioned because of its historical moment, as it was largely responsible for the JA being asked to leave the EA.Bristol Sycamore 18:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It does also have to be said, John, that other churches WOULD INDEED share my concerns about you if you made them fully aware of some of the less savoury aspects of the church, which you now appear to keep very in-house, like your attitude to the salvation of people who leave you, your attitude to people who claim to be called away by God (which you believe is unbiblical), your teaching on Celibate status as the higher way, your corporal punishment policy, your attitude to life covenant and covenant breaking, Your version of Two Kingdom theology, the near-infallible status of Stanton's teaching, your heavy shepherding, your submission to Elders, the submission of women to men, women not having leadership roles (except over women) etcBristol Sycamore 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read, WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#FORUM. Please discuss the article and not the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jossi.Bristol Sycamore 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I will consequently refrain from responding to the above comments, save only to say that I see them as highly misleading. John Campbell 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Situations like this are never going to be easy or painless. Peter, as I see it, your views on this article might be summed up by your statements as follows:

1. feeling aggrieved that the experience of many will not be represented here, for no other reason than that we don't have a verifiable source to prove the validity of our claims.

Understandable aggrievement, but that is pretty much the case. I think if you consider the situation, maybe substituting some other group you have no connection with for the JA, you will see there is no other way to make an article that has any claim to respectability, or is stable, a big condition for Wikipedia high value articles. Verifiable sources are people with a great deal to lose. They have professional reputations to defend and families to feed from their professional earnings. This makes them careful in how they gather information, and cautious in how they express the results. The fact that this is at least tangentially a biography of a living person makes the rules tighten up, if anything.

None of the sources used to justify Stanton's claims verified them. Like you they just quoted them, verbatim. They stand to lose nothing by doing so, precisely because nobody can prove that they did or didn't happen. However, Wiki gives the impression of requiring higher proof than just that it is claimed.....so people reading the assertion will take it as said that the claim has been proved. I'd also say that if you don't represent the whole truth, the article will not be stable because people will want to keep tinkering with it until it gets closer to doing so.Bristol Sycamore 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

2. "had what he described as an intense spiritual experience'" would be close, but isn't it still subjective? Surely, he SAYS that he had such an experience.

Yes he does, but who can deny it? I have deliberately not looked into just what he says the experience was, but he says he had it, and no researcher can prove otherwise. If the experience was not a wholesome one this will presumably be reflected in his actions. (By their fruits, and so forth...) Without minimising anyone's distress, I might point out that the "hurt" you mention might also be seen as an objective experience.

I take your point, though I think you mean subjective, don't you? Yes, naturally, having experienced the JA as something traumatic, my feelings are strong ones. I hope your article, Rumiton, will reflect the fact that there are people like me for whom membership of the JA was traumatising. If you don't then, yes, it will indeed be dismissive of our distress. However, precisely because it is impossible to prove that I feel hurt I have deliberately NOT referred to personal experience in anything I have contributed to the article. I have only referred to post-JA activity pertaining to the EA expulsion, which I have been able to verifyBristol Sycamore 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

3. We are going round in circles and I am not sure you are really listening.

I am listening carefully, and trying my hardest to help. A certain amount of circling may be necessary.

I didn't mean to offend you, Rumiton, but this circling seems fruitless. You are sticking to your guns and there is no movement. Would it help if you tried to see why it is so fundamental to my position that you understand the significance for the church of Stanton's experience? If you appreciate that it gives him total authority over people's lives, doesn't it occur to you that the fact that the experience happened (if at all) in private might cast some doubt on it? It doesn't matter whether he describes it as profound or not. I have no problem with him saying it was profound; of course he will say that. What I have a problem with is you taking it as granted that it happened at all.....and doing so with no evidence. (I am only repeating this point because you are willing to accept the circling).Bristol Sycamore 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Rumiton, would it be easier for you just to go ahead and write the whole article without waiting for agreement?

Not really. The next step will be to build on what we have agreed to here, using sources unknown to me whose validity will also need to be discussed.

Oh dear, because if we all have to lower our expectation of representing the truth yet further, as Jossi suggests, this is going to be a pretty depressing process.Bristol Sycamore 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

5. …perhaps there will be enough in it which represents the truth from where I stand to compensate for the compromise I am probably going to be forced to make.

That is my fervent wish also. Rumiton 13:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rumiton.Bristol Sycamore 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors should lower their expectations about representing "the truth" in a Wikipedia article. Best we can do is describe facts and opinions that have been published on the subject. Lowering or actually adjusting our expectations to what is possible and permissible in a Wikipedia article, will make the editing process more enjoyable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, there's Rumiton doing a valiant job of playing fair and there's the ref saying that maybe he should try not to worry too much about representing the truth. Hard to see how any of this is going to be enjoyable for me, though I dare say, the JA will be delighted.Bristol Sycamore 17:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to misquote me, Bristol. I did not say try not to worry too much about representing the truth. I said, that in Wikipedia, we can only describe what reliable, published sources say about a subject, and that has nothing to do with truth, but with verifiability. If you find that not acceptable, then maybe you need to reconsider your participation in this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That read like a threat, Jossi, was it meant to? Actually, I didn't quote you, I paraphrased you and it is hard to infer from "Editors should lower their expectations about representing "the truth" in a Wikipedia article" other than that the truth will more likely be compromised than protected. I thought it was fair comment. And I am sorry to repeat myself, but if the so-called reliable sources didn't verify Stanton's claims, but only repeated them, verbatim, they don't make the claim any more reliable. Repeatedly repeating something does not make it progressively more true.Bristol Sycamore 18:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, far from being delighted, I find this continual maligning of the Jesus Army pretty sick inducing, if that is any consolation to you.John Campbell 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The only thing which would be consoling to me, John, would be the truth and the value of the truth being given greater weight here.Bristol Sycamore 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To summarise my position, if Wikipedia puts its stress on verifiability rather than truth, then it should insist on better evidence than sympathetic sources which do no better than quoting Stanton's claim verbatim, particularly when similar evidence would be considered insufficient if a counter claim was made.Bristol Sycamore 18:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

May comment was not a threat. But I have seen editors that have been unable (or unwilling) to understand how this project works, and eventually decided that Wikipedia was not for them. There is no reason to repeat the same arguments again: All you need is to understand WP:SPS as it pertains to claims made by a person about which this article is related. Wikipedia is not an instrument to present "the truth", but an encyclopedia designed to summarize existing published materials. It is quite simple, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What about SPS cited in another book, as my pamphlet has been in several cases?Bristol Sycamore 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, can I point out that references to my pamphlet in this regard to date have been spurious, as I am Not citing it as a reference source, but referring to the part it played in the HISTORY of the JA, when its publication in 1985 led to the Evangelical Alliance inviting myself and its other author to a meeting with Noel Stanton and his PR man; and the subsequent expulsion of the JA when they refused to discuss the matters which the pamphlet: especially the church's isolationism.Bristol Sycamore 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If a pamphlet was described in a reliable secondary source, we can describe what that secondary source says about that pamphlet. We cannot, on the other hand, engage in original research and speculate in the article about what influence that pamphlet may have had in the history of the JA, unless that influence is described, again, in a secondary published source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

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 [6] . 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 [7] Each article has also had typo corrections since a selection of articles from the archive where duplicated here [8] I hope this is of help concerning the Wikipedia:Verifiability of sources under consideration. --Mike Aldrich 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

For what it's worth, I can confirm that Mike's archive[9] 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[10], 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)

Thanks for these. As we work through the article, we will need to consider each reference individually. Rumiton 11:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

The experiences and their effects

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)

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)

Mike Aldrich, do you - or does anyone else - have a copy of the article in the Independent from 1989 written by William Dalrymple (noted journalist, historian and writer of books on India)? It was a very solid piece, which represented the positions of both sides very fairly. I think it is a useful and thoroughly reputable source. Indeed, in my opinion, it is one of the best written, non-partisan documents on the Jesus Fellowship. I have no idea where my copy got to but I shall have a good look in the loft.-- Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The article you mention is duplicated within the archive, 08/04/1989 : The Jesus People --Mike Aldrich (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Although dalrymple's article was balanced, it is quite dated and journalistic. I'm sure the best sources from a Wikipedia point of view are the academic type of ones ones currently listed in the article.John Campbell (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Non-neutral editings

Some of the recent edits made to this article are in defiance of WP:NPOV, particularly the links to clearly apostate websites. Editors involved with this Talk process don't appear to be responsible for them, so it might be best to deal with them as we go through the article. I have added a "Controversial topic, discuss here before making important changes" tag to the top of this page. Rumiton (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, I must say I regard your reference to "apostate websites" with deep concern! Not at all sure what you regard as an apostate website in the first place, but concerned if you are dismissing people's opinions simply because they are no longer Christians. I am quite certain Wiki does not exist to protect religions from atheists. Please could you explain your position.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you are referring to an ex-JA as apostate (as I dearly hope you are not, but which seems to be the inference from your ref to JEANNI), that makes me wonder how neutral you are, Rumiton. Apostasy is meant to refer to someone's relationship to God and not to ONE very small part of God's church. So far as I recall, JEANNI does not indicate whether or not John Everett is a Christian; and I am not sure it is relevant to the subject. You have me worried.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be only fair to point out that John Everitt was Pete Eveleigh's colleague in his opposition to the Jesus Army. Should these edits not be reverted? John Campbell (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, why does John Campbell seem so confident that you will revert any reference to John Everett on the strength of JE's association with me? I am disconcerted by his assumption that you will see it his way.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Need I point out that I removed my own edits to show good faith at the start of the edit process, a point you have not shown the good grace to acknowledge, John? The implication that anyone associated with me must be reverted is in poor taste and antagonistic. If we can't agree a compromise, which I'd have thought was desirable for all, you risk editors simply continuing to edit the article in future, whatever this process achieves.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In what way do your recent non NPOV edits to the main page advance the process? John Campbell (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Coming down from the top. Wikipedia does not exist to "protect religions from atheists" nor to protect atheists from religions. We are just here to provide neutral information on interesting subjects gleaned from reliable sources. Regarding apostacy, you are correct in saying it has come to mean "abandonment of a religion" but the core meaning is just "departure." If you have left a group or belief system, you are an apostate, or departed one. If, for example, someone has left Mormonism, it matters not whether they then became a Roman Catholic or a Marxist, they are an apostate to the Morman Church. They have departed from something that they once held dear, and rejected beliefs and practises that they once, even perhaps with a struggle, accepted and espoused. There is a well-known backlash which makes them not a good source of neutral information. This situation has been very well documented on Wikipedia, and I believe you have acknowledged it yourself, as has John regarding his Conflict of Interest. It seems unfair, but as soon as someone says "I was/have been a member of this group for 20 years and I can tell you ALL about them" they pretty much disqualify themselves as sources. It should not be a problem if the neutral sources which you mentioned before are usable. How are you doing with them? Regarding John's confidence or otherwise about my support (or otherwise) you will have to ask him (or otherwise.) Rumiton (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Also, your removal of criticism pending the outcome of discussion was most commendable. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I echo the comment that your removal of criticism pending the outcome of discussion was was commendable. John Campbell (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, Thanks for your explanation but I am still concerned. The word apostate is as NPOV as the word the JA dislike, proselytise, perhaps more so. An apostate has abandoned the religion, not the local church which practises the religion;not even a sect, if the person continues in the religion. What disconcerts me is that you are using the word apostate in precisely the way that the JA do. The JA regard anyone who has left them as someone who has left god. I have never heard a member of any other Christian church describe someone who has left a church congregation as an apostate.....it is a term which implies a judgement/criticism.

I have no reason to suppose that John Everett has stopped being a Christian, and neither do you. If, as the JA claim, they are orthodox Christians, then John Everett's exit from the JA does not make him apostate. He has not abandoned his religion, he has just changed church. Same for me. I was a practising Christian for some 5 years after leaving the JA. Leaving it did not make me apostate either.

Your use of the word apostate, taken together with the confidence JC seems to have that invoking my name will raise alarm bells about credibility in your eyes; and with this the astonishing near-word-perfect coincidence (after all this time of ignoring it) of the acknowledgement by both of you in quick succession of my removal of contentious edits, makes me wonder if I can be part of this negotiation.

Have to smile at the way the word "most" stuck in JC's throat, though.

Perhaps you and John should just go ahead and write this thing together and I shall just come back when it is done and edit it as beforeBristol Sycamore (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement "The JA regard anyone who has left them as someone who has left god" is totally untrue. John Campbell (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Will Wikipedia accept affidavits to support my claim, Rumiton? A good many people will support my assertion that they were told that God's covering would be with drawn from them. In my case, Mick Haines (in line to replace Noel Stanton, so I understand) told me that if I got cancer having left, I would not be under grace and could not expect on God's healing. JC knows as well as does everyone at Bugbrooke that anyone who leaves is regarded as a covenant breaker who must be under judgement as a consequenceBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I also have two emails from last year in which your number two, Tschaka Roussell confirmed that an elder he had discussed this with admitted that lost salvation for leavers was far more freely spoken of in the early 1980s. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You will not do that. You seem to be implying in terms that I can no longer ignore that I am in some sort of collusion with the Jesus Army. This is calling me a liar, after my having said that I am not. In Wikipedia terms it is accusing me of being a meat puppet. This is a serious breach of Wiki policy assume good faith. I have made several thousand edits of Wiki articles on many subjects, not limited to New Religious Movements, Eastern Religions, Protestantism and Lutherism. If you refuse to take part in this discussion in good faith, you can request mediation. If you don't display good faith there you will probably be blocked from further participation in this article. Them's the choices. If you withdraw your accusation we can proceed. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not called you a liar, but I apologise if I have given you reason to feel that I have. Mediation may indeed be necessary, however, as you are using an non-NPOV term which I have only ever heard used in this sense by the JA, and I ask you to put yourself in my shoes when you consider the implications of this, rather than trying to force me into a corner, which would have me banned. I consider my concern legitimate and I haven't voice it in order to cause offense. I ask you to assume my good faith on that. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, I happily accept that, an unfortunate coincidence perhaps, but I am using Wikipedia terms, and I believe apostate in Wiki articles is thoroughly neutral (though it does disqualify a person's opinion from being directly quoted, as does current membership.) It just means someone who used to follow a particular belief system but no longer does, and may have a jaundiced view of their former colleagues. I myself am an apostate from several belief systems I adopted while younger and less innoculated against such things. Probably most of us are. So how are you going with finding neutral sources? Everything rides on that. Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rumiton. As long as the JA does not espouse (or claim to espouse) a belief system which is distinct from the rest of the Christian church, I really think that we should not refer to anyone as apostate unless they themselves claim to be apostate. Nobody who has left the JA is apostate, per se. They have just gone to a different church. People are either members of a particular Christian congregation, or not.

As regards sources, there are many. I would wish to use all the verifiable sources in Mike Aldrich's archive and one or two books. Before I can go and look one of them up I'll need to know which part of the article you want us to consider next.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point now, we don't need to use the term apostate, as long as we understand that neither disgruntled ex-members nor gruntled current members are usable sources.

How will you tell the difference between an ex-member with a legitimate criticism and one who is just "disgruntled"? Will sources need to be found to substantiate it?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't tell the difference. That is why we can't use any of them. Sources will need to be found for all controversial statements included in the article. Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that, but does the same apply to divining gruntled or disgruntled members - considering that a lot of the editors writing for the JA here are members (even if they are not John C)?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement "a lot of the editors writing for the JA here are members" betrays an underlying assumption. Maybe other editors are (a) neutral (b) not writing "for" anyone (c) not members of the JA. John Campbell (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As you betrayed my identity, which must surely be against Wikipedia rules, would you be willing to make all JA contributors declare themselves, so that people may make a judgement about their possible bias, John?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at the first controversial sentences:

...Noel Stanton who in 1968 experienced a profound and intense spiritual episode or 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit', see also Pentecost. What do neutral sources say about this?

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. Who said so? How was it affected? How was it influenced? Sources, please. Rumiton (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why both claims can't be conflated into the latter paragraph (with citation, of course), so that a personal experience which Stanton is meant to have had in private anyway, can be left out - and not be a bone of contention which I know will inevitable be disputed later, whatever we decide now.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to backtrack slightly to earlier in the sentence under consideration too.

Its founder was the chapel pastor Noel Stanton who in 1968 experienced ...

and consider the use of Mr or Reverend, instead of Pastor, unless an citation can be found indicating Mr Stanton can be attributed with the title pastor in 1968. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are absolutely no neutral sources we cannot just ignore this experience. It is clearly crucial to Noel Stanton's role as leader. Do you have a source who describes it? Once we get one, with vigilance there should be no future problem. John, do you have anything? And the second question, about influences on the JA? Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it is not crucial to Stanton's role as a leader as he had been appointed by the Baptist Chapel where the movement began. I won't labour the point, but I do beg you to consider that as someone neutral you will not be perhaps appreciate the significance that is given to Noel Stanton's own Baptism of the Holy Spirit in annointing him as a prophet given near infallible status within the church -not merely the Pastor he already was. The fact that the annointing happened in private makes the verifiability of any published source rather questionable; no more than hearsay. I am certain John can find a reference as the story has been endlessly retold by the originator of the story, who clearly has an interest in the story being accepted as true. I shall leave it at that, but I assure you that while the subtleties of this may even have been missed by any sympathetic commentator (author of a published source)to whom Stanton has re-told the story it will be disputed by others if it is left in. Remove it and there need be no future grounds for argument. I will never be happy with its inclusion, but I will not dispute it any more as I think I have said quite enough on the subjectBristol Sycamore (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In a way I think you are making my point, that it is a very significant occurrence. If it were to be omitted altogether, much of what would follow would not make sense, though if there are no neutral sources, then omitted it must be. On the other hand, if neutral sources emphasise that there were no witnesses, and the congegation can only take Mr Stanton's word that it happened, then that can be said. Rumiton (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll think I am being pedantic, but I'd say it was a claimed occurrence which has been given significance, but anyway, as I say, I shall leave it to your judgement. Thanks for persevering with this, despite my making it awkward.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is being pedantic, just unsourced. OK, last chance. Are you still there John? Do we have a neutral source for Mr Stanton's experience? Otherwise out it goes. If a NS turns up later, of course it can go in. Rumiton (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested earlier on this page in this edit on 12 November:

C. Peter Collinson "All Churches Great and Small" p.78, David V Barrett "The New Believers" p.227 and Chryssides "Exploring New Religions" p.150 all are neutral sources that refer to Noel Stanton having had a spiritual experience that proved significant for the future change in the church. I thought Jossi had attempted to draw a line under this particular part of the discussion on the 12 November.

The point is not that "everything he did after that becomes sanctified" so that Stanton is a "prophet given near infallible status". That is misleading in the extreme. It's worth noting that the references speak of the members of the church following into this experience, and as a previous reference from Chryssides (p. 160) that I quoted says "Noel Stanton ... claims no special revelation that is not accessible to any other member". John Campbell (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I still feel that recent edits by John Everitt ought to be considered for reversion now, as exhibiting blatant non-NPOV WP:NPOV, original research WP:OR and lacking verifiability WP:V. Many of the changes are unacceptable editorialising. He has also restored a link that an administrator had previously deleted as against Wikipedia policy WP:SPS. In addition Pete Eveligh/Bristol Sycamore's recent partisan edits to the page hardly help advance the discussion. For example, the links to Jesus Army pages ought to remain as per WP:SELFPUB at least until the matter has been aired. John Campbell (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

John, I am afraid most of the article currently exhibits POVness. There is still "unacceptable editorialising" in the way the founder's experience is described, for example, though it is more subtle. All the unsourced stuff has to go, and hopefully will in due course, though I regret I didn't put the Discuss First tag up earlier. Just got home, I'll look some more tonight. Rumiton (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do see that in any case the sentence as it stood was very easily capable of unhelpful misunderstanding. Something more neutral might be in order, see the references I suggested. John Campbell (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just removed the "for further opinions see..." You are right. It was way over the top. Now I am struggling with the para on the experience. And is there controversy over the title Pastor? Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is controversy over the title Pastor. I read the comments above as illustrating the potential difficulty in verifying everything! To comment on your edits in this paragraph, (a) we probably ought to include mention of other members finding a similar charismatic experience and (b) I don't think it was "further efforts" as the efforts hadn't been lacking up till then. perhaps a neutral wording would be something along the lines of saying the charismatic experience led into new developments. John Campbell (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Detailed sources

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)

Footnotes section

Tentatively, I just added Newell and Wright as footnotes/sources, as they appear to write objectively, and this does not appear to be a controversial section. What are their backgrounds? Rumiton (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From "Note on Contributors" in Charismatic Christianity: Keith Newell is a graduate in sociology from the University of Durham. From 1972-4 he belonged to a Christian community at Potters Green, Coventry and since then has been associated with a number of Charismatic communities.

Nigel Wright is the senior pastor of Altrincham Baptist Church and previously senior lecturer in Christian theology at Spurgeon's College. He is author of ten books and co-author of the best-selling Charismatic Renewal: The Search for a Theology (SPCK 1995)

And for the avoidance of doubt, neither of them have ever been members of the Jesus Fellowship.

John Campbell (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal allegations

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)

Thanks Rumiton. -PeterBristol Sycamore (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The next paragraph

By now, as the article progresses, both sides of this debate should be saying to themselves "My Goodness, do I have to put up with that? That is a long way from the truth as I see it, and that I feel so passionate about!" Is that the feeling? Great! It means we must be approaching neutrality. (I don't want to sound uncaring. I have been through exactly this myself with articles on subjects I was passionately attached to.)

The next paragraph, that starts The Jesus Army is known by some for its street outreach and has a particular influence over many who claim to be in need, is seriously weird. "...known by some" is bad, meaningless or misleading. "Particular influence" sounds vaguely sinister. "Claim to be in need..." the whole thing has a schizoid ring. What do sources say about the outreach activities of the JA? Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I think it is schizoid because people have religiously followed the rules and not removed other people's stuff and just tried to make their contributions fit around it. It needs either a total re-write or deletion. In light of certain aspects of the Battlecentre film in particular, which revealed that JA activities are not about relief of need/charity, per se, but about evangelism, I do think that whatever is said should make it clear that the 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 hope you feel that is fair, John?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

With the addition of "positive" it's a better stab at a 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.

Turning to the paragraph we are now looking at, it is schizoid because someone has gone through and editorialised it drastically instead of seeking to use neutral words wherever possible, and letting the facts speak for themeselves. "known by some" "has a particular influence" "who claim to be in need" "proselytising" "their version of the Christian gospel" "friendship dependency" "according to their interpretation" are all value-laden and all were added recently. But I'm going to check out some sources, as requested, now. John Campbell (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"According to their interpretation" is one I will happily hold my hand up to. As it stood, the article left the impression that the model of community practised by the JFC is the one universally accepted as that of the early church, which I am not sure is the case. Might it not be better not to include community in the paragraph, but to put it in a separate section? Then any differences of opinion about the format of community can be represented, if the JA assert that it is not a matter of interpretation?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I happily accept that this a matter of interpretation. Indeed, we could not even say that our model is exactly that of Acts 2 & 4! The aim in Wikipedia editing (and the problem) is to find neutral words to say the same thing. John Campbell (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, John. I have always "felt" sympathy with your interpretation of Acts 2&4, or at least community always felt right to me as a Christian, but I have never been comfortable with the idea that it is God's plan or model for the church or that any form of Christianity which did not take that form was unbiblical. I agree that we must find some neutral wording which makes it clear that it is a matter of interpretation.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's some relevant quotes: —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Campbell (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious Movements homepage: "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... 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.

"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."

RE:Quest: "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... However these early church ideals attract some people and, like monks and nuns, the motivation is out of love for God and a desire to help others less fortunate. Not all members share all they have by putting their income into a 'common purse' but there is significant pooling of money and resources to help others and reach people 'on the streets' with the Christian faith and practical help. Various 'arms' of the organisation have been initiated to provide this practical help."

C Peter Collinson: "In 1987 the Jesus Army was set up, to mobilise outreach in towns and cities in the Midlands, and then in London. They have targetted homeless young people, those involved with drug or alcohol abuse and others in socail need. Long-term care hs been given by integrating them into the houses, and into teh farms or other businesses. Their work in this way has become well-known, as has their campaigning against crime, unemployment, homelessness, racism, abortion and the occult." (p79)

Nigel Scotland, Charismatics and the New Millennium: "The Fellowship and Army have a strong leadership and engage in effective evangelism particularly among the poor and disadvantaged." (p26)

Chryssides, Exploring New Religions: "The Jesus Fellowship Church's mission is essentailly one to the poor, the disadvantaged and the marginalised. Members ministered, both locally and further afield, to glue sniffers, pimps, prostitutes and criminals, Missions variously targetted the homeless (some work was done in 'Cardboard City' in London), the lonely and on at least one occasion, gypsies." (p.154)

Sufficent? John Campbell (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Another quote, referring to earlier activity, and partly dealing with Pete's request above:

Chryssides: "Although some of the older members also received the gift of the Spirit, the phenomenon deeply divided the congregation, and, all in all, 43 of its members resigned in the early 1970s leaving the Bugbrooke Jesus Fellowship to belong predominantly to the youth culture. When word got around about the anointing of the Spirit that the Bugbrooke Fellowship Church had received, various elements of the youth counter-culture became attracted to it. Seekers included bikers, drug users, glue sniffers, New Agers and others who had emerged from hippie culture." (p 151)

John Campbell (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, I think this last one about the resignation of 43 members of the local Baptist Chapel spares me some homework. It was largely the basis of the comments I made above. It reflects the fact that the majority of members came from outside the village and that the population which had been served by this local chapel until then were effectively made churchless by the changes to its practices. I hope Rumiton will feel that this fact should be included in the history of the chapel at Bugbrooke.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to report the facts and avoid interpretation as far as possible. I am unlikely to agree on your emphasis or interpretation, but hopefully facts can tell their own tale, and we may manage to agree on them. I could of course point out that very many people were leaving churches and chapels over the same period for a variety of other, unrelated, issues. John Campbell (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure agreement is possible, particularly as I have no first-hand experience of the events to colour my preception, beyond having talked to some of the resignees, who felt hurt having lost their local chapel to outsiders. What other issues did people leave the church over at that time?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you meant leaving OTHER chapels etc. Would you have a source for this?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

All I can immediately lay my hand on is the UK Christian Handbook 2000/2001 which shows that the 1970s showed the most rapid decline in church membership (Figure 2.12.2, p.12) and that UK Baptist membership fell between 1970 and 1975 from 272,000 to 238,000 (Table 2, page 25). What this doesn't reveal however is the magnitude of the "churn factor" or revolving door effect, that is people leaving or dying and being partially replaced by others joining. I don't know where to look for that. John Campbell (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

'We always had a fairly substantial congregation and on Sunday evenings we might has as many as 50 people here.' and 'Some members of my congregation completely shared this wonderful experience. We realised that so much of the Christian faith was traditional and respectable but it was missing life.' article, Daily Mail, 22nd september 1973, 'In the village where religion is a singing, swinging affair' - the article also includes further mention of baptism in the spirit.--Mike Aldrich (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Social profile of Jesus Army and its offences

I thought the enumeration here of the lurid sins and failings of the clients of the Jesus Army seemed a little condescending, emphasising a sense of superiority that may or may not exist, but should not anyway be a part of this aricle.

Probably a good time now to look at the ways JA has apparently upset some sections of the wider community. The accusation of being a "sect" or "cult" can be ignored, as the words are pretty much standard insults and are taboo anyway within Wikipedia. What are the scriptural offenses they have been accused of? What social attitudes? What behaviours? Rumiton (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The social profile of the Jesus Army and its members is a significant aspect of what it is. If I can find some relevant quotes maybe you can reconsider.

As to its failings, I'll look out a small quote or two (without becoming too NPOV). John Campbell (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I started to wonder about that (the relevance of the extent of problems in those who are attracted.) By all means let's look at the sources, maybe what they say will flow naturally into the text here. John, NPOV means Neutral Point of View. It is a good thing, what we are striving towards.  :-) Rumiton (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It was meant tongue in cheek :-) John Campbell (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Pardon my lack of humour. I actually had a nightmare about this article the other night. Remind me to tell you about it some time. Or not. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not much humour here recently.

For social profile, see my quotes above. I think they may say what we need in a more felicitous manner than we had on the page before. I'll also look out some other quotes, but it won't be until next week now. John Campbell (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Like John, I am afraid I am going to be rather tied up for some days now, but I promise to get back to you; I hope others may step into the breach. I'd like to stress that I am not terribly concerned about emphasising the more sensational misdeeds of members, which have hit the headlines, though I do think it important that where they might possibly be seen as a consequence of, for instance, policy which represses sexuality / abuses of power, it is important that the JA not shirk some kind of responsibility by simply saying "he was never really one of us". I mainly put up these cases before because they are more easily verified than my far more pressing concerns like doctrine/practice which encourages leavers to believe they may be damned, or which makes members critical of other churches, heavy shepherding, corporal punishment, unreasonable social demands, banned relationships, etc. And incidentally, I dislike the word cult too- not because it is not neutral but because it is largely meaningless.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you campaigning or helping to write an encyclopaedia article? John Campbell (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

John, you have what you want to say and I have what I want to say. I am sure you don't call yours campaigning, so there is no reason for you to disparage mine. Naturally you would rather not discuss the issues which concern myself and others but eventually they must be dealt with. Your comment was provocative, which is a shame when we have managed to keep the peace for a couple of days (including me putting back your website link in good faith).-Peter Bristol Sycamore (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how what I said can be called provocative. It seems remarkably mild to me, considering the agenda being pushed on this article in the comment I was responding to. Rumiton, can you clarify whether calls for contributions such as Pete has made here are acceptable? I accept it is pretty balanced but is obviously polling a field that is far from neutral. If they are, presumably I could do the same with Jesus Army members, friends and supporters, who might have something to say about the matter. John Campbell (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the website and found it pretty mild. It is a standard apostate (yes, in the Wiki sense) forum. Though I was bemused to find myself described as "a bit anal." I mean, how would she know? I might be VERY anal. (I was in the Royal Australian Navy for many years and came out of the experience pretty much uninsultable.) Seriously, if Pete had been using an on-line forum to denigrate Wiki editors it would be have to be looked at, but I don't think he did that. And yes, you are also welcome to invite others to represent your point of view. As long as they can provide neutral sources for what they say, we can look at it. Rumiton (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I just wanted to be sure of my ground. John Campbell (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that assessment, Rumiton. I chose to use JAW to ask for help with the article, as that is the place where most people still with an interest in the JA seem to meet (or lurk, at least). I would stress that I certainly was not the one who called Rumiton anal.-Peter Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

John, neither your polled field nor mine is going to be neutral, but that doesn't mean that a neutral article is not possible. You talk about my agenda as if it is in itself a terrible thing to have strong views; but I wouldn't describe your own strong convictions as in themselves bad. I think it is important that I invite wider involvement, though some may be intimidated into not contributing by the threat of malicious postings by our mutual "friend". I very nearly ran for the hills myself. This must very definitely not be a Peter Eveleigh versus the John Campbell/JA article. There are far more people concerned about this matter and I hope they will join in. Of course, we don't have a professional PR man or an archive of books etc - In my case I haven't got almost any of my old stuff - it was a long time ago - but we will do what we can, if it takes us a bit longer to respond to the challengeBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to express myself neutrally, though I appreciate you have not always taken it that way. John Campbell (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't feel that you have an agenda here, John? You don't feel you are here to promote the JA POV? I mean, presumably you won't, in the spirit of neutrality, dig out articles which prove my point about people who left feeling they would be damned, for instance. I think we need to be honest here. We each have an agenda. That does not mean that we are bad people or that we can't write a good article between us.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Growth and Spread

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)

Sure, a look at the movement's development since inception would be helpful. Sources? Rumiton (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Growth and Spread: some Quotes

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)

The Athanasian creed

I just looked this up, having not heard of it before. It seems to have fallen into disuse, if not disfavour, among the main churches. Is it an active or controversial aspect of JA beliefs? Rumiton (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not as accessible as the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed, and so not as well known or well used, but it is one of the three ecumenical creeds, which are all accepted by mainstream western Christians. Its main emphasis, unlike the other two, is on the Trinity. Strictly the Nicene Creed is the only "universal creed" as it is accepted by the Eastern Orthodox churches. So it's non-controversial (unless Pete wants to argue that we don't actually beieve it) but significant. The "We Believe" booklet, which gos through our Statement of Faith, concludes with an Appendix with the three ecumenical creeds. By the way, that was the significance of the word 'historic' placed before creeds in the original. John Campbell (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The word "historic" didn't seem to be earning its keep in the article. I'm still not convinced about it. Rumiton (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Up to you. It does have a specific meaning, which is why it was there. But it may not be needed. John Campbell (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Doesn't matter much, probably. On to Beliefs.

Beliefs

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)

'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)

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)

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)

Why was the Jesus Army at one stage asked to leave the Evangelical Alliance? Rumiton (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

(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) [moved for ease of reference John Campbell (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)]

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)

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)

Controversy: Some quotes

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)

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)

I hope mention will be made of the attitude towards "drug addicts, gays, transsexuals" [JC quoted in Hadden, above] being lumped in together, as if the latter two were suffering from some kind of undesirable disease.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

What WAS the meaning of the quote? Why group the three together like that?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

determining bias (and quotability)

Rumiton, you have said that as present and ex members of the JA neither John nor I be quoted directly. I understand the point - either of us may be unreasonably biased.

As John deliberately "unmasked me", revealing my identity, and was able to do so without, apparently, breaking any rules, are you in a position to make a stipulation (without revealing identities, by all means) that if contributions are given from either ex members or present members of the JFC, there must be some declaration of POV? (e.g. I am ex-JFC; I am present day member of an NCCC household, etc)

FWIW I only 'unmasked' you after you had revealed your identity, by signing a post Pete Eveleigh as well as Bristol Sycamore. John Campbell (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather goes to show that I was not hiding behind my wiki identity, as you seemed to imply when you blazed it across the screen by creating a section of its own.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the affiliation of the contributor is, each contribution is judged on its merits. Is it neutrally sourced, is it verifiable, does it contradict Biography of a Living Person (libellous or gratuitously hurtful), is it an extraordinary claim (against what most sources say), does it give undue weight to a particular view? and a few other things (policies.)

Wikipedia allows all editors to work pseudonymously, real identities are strongly protected. But John could not "unmask" you if you had already unmasked yourself. "Reveal" means to uncover what was hidden. If it wasn't hidden, it could not be uncovered. Rumiton (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough. If it is true. I haven't checked. The point is not that I was hiding or not (as you say, we all use pseudonyms); the point is that John was trying to draw attentiont to my real identity, in case anyone else had not guessed or realised - so as to imply that what I said was dodgy because of who I am. It is weasly behaviour, if not against rules or definitions. I would also point out the way that he wishes to get John Everett's insertions removed on no stronger basis than that his name is associated with mine. Essentially, it is an attempt to defame my name. Whatever he feels, my bonafides are as sound as his in Wikipedia.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have shifted the following contribution to here to make it more accessible. Rumiton (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done it myself because I don't want to be out of line, but shouldn't John's Everett's contribution be in a separate section? It isn't relevant to this sectionBristol Sycamore (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's call it

JA Business deals and other matters

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)) Rumiton (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Noel Stanton's status as "pastor"

Mike Aldrich has drawn attention to this and John Campbell has referred to Noel Stanton as being a "lay pastor".

I appreciate that there is a great deal of work being done on other matters right now and I don't want to get in the way or introduce anything which will be lost in all that. So, can I just ask if this could be addressed separately? (I will contribute what I can, but having had more time due to an injury until now, I am now working full time again, and will have a little less time to be here; I will move more slowly than John is able to)

I think I am right in saying that Noel Stanton has never been an ordained minister of any denomination and that when he was appointed to lead the Baptist Chapel at Bugbrooke he was only recently out of Bible College (indeed, had he completed his diploma?) and did so as a stand-in. Isn't that right, John?

I also think that the schism created by the change in direction at Bugbrooke ought also to be addressed, as many of the original members of the chapel who had appointed Stanton felt forced out of their own local village chapel by the change of emphasis away from traditional Baptist worship to Charismatic evangelicalism. I believe there was also a resentment of this change having been brought by outsiders to the village. I am certain I can source this with a little effort, but I am sure John can lay his hands on the relevant material more readily.

I think his status ought to be clearly stated in the article.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Noel Stanton's status as pastor is clearly stated in the sources I have already quoted from. What more do you want?

Some more history, though I cannot see that it is necessary:

Chryssides (p149): "In 1957 the congregation [of Bugbrooke Baptist Church] was in need of a minister, and Noel Stanton, who continues to lead the Jesus Fellowship Church, was recommended to them... Having trained at All Nations Bible College, he became deputy secretary to the West Amazon Mission; then, following a couple of jobs in the world of business, he offered himself to the Ministry Committee of the Baptist Union and was accepted."

Beyond that Fire in our Hearts gives more of the basic history:

Cooper & Farrant: "Miss Campion [the church secretary] called a church meeting which invited him to become their full-time pastor. Noel accepted but offered to continue his secular work in order to help with the finances of the church. So in March 1957 local Baptist leaders and the Principal of All Nations [Bible College] gathered for Noel’s induction ceremony." (p.28)

The term "lay pastor" used in one of the sources (not my words) simply means (as above) that Noel Stanton continued in part time secular work as well as peforming his pastoral duties. It is not to be read as a reference to his status as an ordained minister.

As to the rest of the comments above, Pete needs to source them reliably if he wants to substantiate them.

John Campbell (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the title Pastor in this context is not controversial. If there is a source, we might mention the possibly unsettling effects of the change to a charismatic ministry (as I understand it to have happened) but we are not writing a book. This article should aim for a broader coverage of the subject. Rumiton (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you have explained it very clearly, John. I wasn't making waves on this score - just asking that some clarification be given, as I had always known Noel to be a lay pastor.

As far as the problems in the chapel congregation go, I am sure you know what I mean, but I appreciate what you say, that as it could be seen to put the JFC in a bad light, the onus is on me to prove it if I am anxious for it to be included. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See my quote below. John Campbell (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is still misleading, in that it infers that Noel Stanton was the Baptist pastor rather than being within the Baptist laity at Bugbrooke at the time.

There are a number of references to Pastor / Elder / Senior Elder Noel Stanton around, these are commonly references to his position within the Jesus Fellowship Church, rather than his position within the Baptist church. Rather than suggest citations which refer to Mr Stanton as the 'pastor' back then are inaccurately researched, after re-reading them with this in mind and knowing he was the pastor of his jesus fellowship at the time that they where written should clarify matters.

There are significant differences between being a lay person / lay leader / lay preacher / lay pastor, and being a 'pastor' within the Baptist church. The article should reflect the difference accurately by describing Mr Stanton as being amongst the laity. The use of 'lay pastor' as cited above (factually), or 'lay preacher' would accurately describe this. 'reverend' as i suggested earlier is simply a polite title which Mr Stanton has been given on numerous occasions, which does not indicate a level of authority within a church body, and could also be used. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are driving at here, but I think you must have misunderstood something, Mike, as there was never any question over Noel Stanton's status as minister of Bugbrooke Baptist Church in the years from his induction in 1957, described in the quote above. John Campbell (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The best I can offer at present is this quote from the Baptist Times, April 24, 1980 from an article by Lewis Misselbrook: "I had known Noel many years before. he was then a printer, working in Bedford and living in Bugbrooke, where he was pastor of the village Baptist chapel" and Evangelism Today, August 1974, from an article by Dick Perfect; "Rev Noel Stanton has been minister at Bugbrooke Chapel for 18 years. The first 13 he describes as having been 'traditionally evangelical but very lively'. The last five have been very evangelical and very, very lively but not at all traditional..." Or how about the lists of baptisms that used to appear regularly in the Baptist Times, with Bugbrooke and Rev Noel Stanton listed among other churches and ministers, some of whom are lsited as Mr rather than Rev (such as 4 August 1981). I don't know what more you could ask than that. John Campbell (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how your comments add to the discussion regarding the incorrect use of the term pastor in relation to Mr Stantons standing within the Baptist Church. Are you suggesting the use of the term 'minister' instead ? Although with only induction into the Baptist Church, rather than an ordination, the use of the term 'unordained Baptist minister' would be more appropriate if that option is chosen.--Mike Aldrich (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this point is going anywhere. You are asserting that Noel Stanton is and was unordained. I am asserting that he is and was an ordained minister. However, to take it further requires too much discussion of the nature and theology of ordination in the Baptist tradition which would be WP:OR, so we just need to stick with the sources WP:V. John Campbell (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I asserted no such thing – i have no idea if any church body outside of the Baptist Union of Great Britain has ordained Mr Stanton, or if self-ordination or similar took place while the Jesus Fellowship Church was independent of the formal governance of a recognised national church body.

The discussion here relates to the the misleading use of the title 'pastor' in relation to Mr Stanton position in the Baptist Church at Bugbrooke in1969, whilst an appointee of the Baptist Union.

You have provided a number of citations entitling Mr Stanton as both 'pastor' and 'lay pastor', which create a contradiction which needs resolving. The difference between laity and ordained positions is documented amongst wikipedia pages, and also in many Baptist publications, there is no need for WP:OR

Your suggested resolution of the contradiction is to dismiss the use of the cited title 'lay pastor' which you have done inaccurately and in my opinion dubiously!. When in fact, the use of the abbreviation of Mr Stantons 'lay pastor' title, to just 'pastor', is simply that, an abbreviation. One which wikipedia should be more accurate than repeat.

Congregations when addressing a lay pastor frequently miss out the 'lay' from the title, just as the other sources referred to here have done. Just because this abbreviation has also been used in a number of citable sources does not promote Mr Stanton from the Baptist laity into a post-ordination position in the Baptist Church.

WP:V should not be exploited and abused in order to attempt to change historical facts. Anyone who is unfamiliar with your writing style could easily misinterpret some of your contributions to this discussion as doing exactly that. Obviously I have read your comments as you have intended and can see that you have not done that to date.

We both know the fact that Mr Stanton was appointed by the Baptist Union as a 'lay pastor' at the Bugbrooke Baptist Church in the late 1950's.

We both know the fact that Mr Stanton has never been ordained by the Baptist Union/Baptist Church of Great Britain governing bodies, having not completed the requirements to become an ordained minister within the Baptist Union.

Mr Stanton has never seemed concerned that he had never reached the accredited requirements for ordination within the Baptist Church, and from what i hear, he also did not consume much of his time attempting to achieve this accreditation either! Given that Mr Stanton was ambivalent about his position within the Baptist Church bodies, (which the JFC is no longer associated anyway), why not finish this discussion here, and accept a minor alteration to the text of the page to include the title Mr Stanton was given – perhaps with using the phrase 'who at the time was the lay pastor' if it is more acceptable to you.--Mike Aldrich (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation, article in Northampton Post newspaper, 26/08/87, title, 'Jesus Army on the march'. The leader of the controversial religious sect Noel Stanton will conduct the marriage service with the local registrar there for legal reasons. - this indicates Mr Stanton was not accredited to perform a wedding ceremony. --Mike Aldrich 10:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is actually unrelated to questions of ordination, though it is conceivable that it was related to leaving the BU. The wedding has to be conducted in the presence of a legal registrar or an assistant registrar accredited for the building, which must be a place of worship. These days we have three (assistant) registrars, who are of professional standing. John Campbell 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation, article in Northampton Chronicle and Echo, 12/10/84, title, 'from bank clerk to followers figurehead'. But in 1957, the Baptist Chapel in the village of Bugbrooke was without an official pastor and Mr. Stanton in his position as deputation secretary of the West Amazonian Mission was one of the guest speakers invited to address the congregation.After making several trips to the chapel, Mr. Stanton was asked to act as their pastor. He was recognised by the Baptist Union and became part-time pastor.--Mike Aldrich 10:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no issues with this quote. John Campbell 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation, article in Northampton Chronicle and Echo, 24/09/82, title, 'The Figurhead'. And he refers to himself as the Rev. Stanton, but has never actually taken the necessary studies or examinations to qualify as an accredited minister of the Baptist Union.--Mike Aldrich 10:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't trust this reference as a dispassionate report. Certainly "he refers to himself as the rev Stanton" is unfair and misleading, and I have no reason to give much credit to the rest of the sentence. John Campbell 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation, article in Northampton Chronicle and Echo, 24/09/82, title, 'The Figurhead'. He began his pastorate of the Bugbrooke and Heyford group of Baptist churches in the spring of 1957. He started his ministry as a lay pastor with a view to the full pastorate at a later date, but he never gained the necessary formal qualifications.--Mike Aldrich 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation, article in Northampton Mercury and Herald, 22/11/86 entitled 'We shall not be moved - Jesus People to carry on regardless' But the church, founded by unordained preacher Noel Stanton, will carry on regardless, a spokeswoman told the Mercury. --Mike Aldrich 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have explained the situation as I have understood it. I appreciate why you may think otherwise, particularly given that some of the sources support your view. My understanding at the time was that they were not entirely correct. Can we simply resolve this with the use of the term 'lay pastor', as at present? John Campbell 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, It is incredibly tricky to provide citable sources describing the non-occurrence of an event which did not happen, i.e. Mr Stanton being ordained into the Baptist Church / Union, please could advice how we should proceed to reach an acceptable conclusion to this discussion section. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! How do you prove a non-occurrence? I hope you won't be worn down by this attrition, Mike, because you have put this case so logically. This was never an issue with Noel. It was always clear to us that Noel wasn't ordained; Noel was almost proud of it because it was part of our not bowing to tradition, being different, being a church where the laity led, where anyone could give communion, anyone could preach etc. If it was never an issue with the lay-pastor himself, why is it an issue now? My recollection is that Noel was never called pastor by ANY of us. If we referred to him as anything, it was Prophet.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I can prove its provenance but I have found a two page document which I was given at Bugbrooke, which was sort of like a press release and freely available. It is type written and John C probably has a copy, so can confirm it:

"While working for a printing firm, Noel Stanton attended Bible College courses and also undertook medical training with a view to going off to South America as a qualified Nurse engaged in missionary work. In preparation he also became secretary of the West Amazonian Missionary Society. This involvement took him up and down the country and in 1957 he was invited to preach at Bugbrooke Baptist Chapel for the first time. His visit created sufficient interest for the Chapel congregation to invite him to join the chapel on a permanent basis as their pastor. (Noel was recognised by the Baptist Union as a lay-pastor). Thus he layed aside (temporarily as he saw it at the time) his missionary aspirations and took up "the call" at Bugbrooke."

Therefore, Noel Stanton was never ordained. He was recognised by the BU as a lay-pastor; recognised, not appointed. Incidentally, the same document says that Noel was alone in his room at "the Manse" when he experienced 'the inflowing of the Holy Spirit:

"Towards the late 60's Noel became influenced by what he had seen and heard of the national "Charismatic movement" (despite having had initial serious reservations) and he sought for himself the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit on which the movement was based. In 1969, alone in his room at 'The Manse' Noel had this experience of a great awareness of "the inflowing life of God.'[. ...]Following this experience he felt it his duty to lead the chapel congregation along a similar way." Bristol Sycamore 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike and Pete, for those last two contributions. I'm not sure what the document Pete refers to is, but I am willing to accept its accuracy. However, I do disagree that Noel Stanton was EVER referred to by a title of 'Prophet'. I'm afraid that a full understanding this (and also of leaving the BU) requires an understanding of baptist theology of churchmanship, which is basically congregational. The Baptist Union is just that, historically a union of basically independent churches, a 'cause' rather than a 'denomination' (as a Baptist minister teaching colleague once told me). With that theology, authority stems from the congregation, and 'ordination' which must follow on a 'call' from a congregation, and is conveyed at the 'induction'. That said, I do not think it is too difficult to agree a form of words here. John Campbell 11:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting the accuracy of the document, John. I want to make a concession on the Prophet front. It was a status but not a title. I do not recall anyone ever calling Noel, "Prophet Noel" or Prophet Stanton", if that is what you mean, but then none of us who regarded him as a Prophet, referred to him as Pastor or Rev either (a status for external consumption only). He was just Noel. The point about the Prophet bit was that he was the guiding light of the church and if ones perception did not tally with his, ones perception was held to be wrong ("not in the Spirit") because he was the Prophet. I know John that you will say that he is guided by brethren and you will even assert that he submits to the leadership team, but we both know that in the eighties, at least, all the teaching given at Agape by House Elders was given to them at Elders' meetings by Noel, whose hotline to God (horrible term that I never used, by the way) was paramount in the church. Is that fair?Bristol Sycamore 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the guiding light of the church. John Campbell 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple reputable sources in a biography of a living person are only needed for statements that are likely to be challenged. It seems to me that Noel Stanton's lay status is unlikely to be seriously challenged, so I believe it can stand in the article. John? Rumiton 13:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

'Lay pastor' is acceptable, I'm sure. John Campbell 13:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

EA and the re-write about labelling/ Baptist Union / Isolationism

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) You are making it sound as if the JA received criticism at the time only because it was fashionable to label things cults, rather than there having been considerable concern about it from ex-members, families of members and other churches.I feel increasingly defeated. John will be delighted, of courseBristol Sycamore 13:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Prayerforce's Pamphlet/ prayer group - and its link to the EA expulsion

The JA wrote of the effects of the pamphlet written by John Everett and myself ( albeit in unflattering non-NPOV terms ;) and of the consequent metting called by the EA to discuss its content, but as the book says, they didn't agree to meet with John and myself, Fire In Our Hearts, Chapter21, p264 “JESUS CULT — REV STANTON’S KINGDOM. That was us — according to a pamphlet that started to have a wide private circulation! This virulent little job carried allegations of heavy shepherding, deprived kids, infallible authority, legalism, empire building, world-hatred, recruitment and even forced labour. The authors twisted the truth until it was barely recognisable, and Noel in particular came under vicious personal attack.”

“A group was formed to ‘pray’ against us, and they motivated a smear campaign. The ‘Jesus Cult’ pamphlet was distributed to ministers, relatives, new converts and the press. The Jesus Fellowship was discussed in churches, on radio, and even in Woman magazine! Letters flew around, and the media were fed with titbits. The effect was poisonous, and suspicion spread like cancer. A Christian church had been reviled, and the name of Jesus dishonoured. New friends and converts stumbled as critics sought to turn away those whom we had led to Christ. We expected opposition, but this was shameful.”...

[p266]“The EA suggested a meeting with our attackers, but we felt that unless they desired reconciliation, a meeting would achieve nothing. We were keen, though, to meet with responsible leaders and answer their questions. Dave corresponded with Clive Calver, the General Secretary of the Evangelical Alliance. In January 1986 Clive proposed a meeting of three of our leaders with some of the EA executive, and with leaders representing our opponents, to investigate ‘the accusations made against the Fellowship... that these matters might be properly resolved’.”

As the book says, they refused to meet John Everett and myself. I received a phonecall from Clive Calver, saying that the meeting would not take place after all.Bristol Sycamore 01:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean you are accepting Fire in our Hearts as a valid source? John Campbell 09:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

EA expulsion / isolationism

Buzz (later, 21st Century Christian; an evangelical christian monthly magazine), April 1986. "Bugbrooke: Cultic or Christlike", written by Gill Smith

"Membership of the EA is dependent on the member church or organisation being in agreement with its statement of faith, adhering to certain codes of practice and being in close fellowship with other evangelicals. [para] It is on this last count that the Jesus Fellowship has been found wanting by the EA executive made up of church leaders from various denominations. [para] But the Jesus Fellowship say they were surprised at the ruling. 'We didn't know "being in close relationship with other evangelicals" was a condition for membership of the EA. Perhaps they have changed the rules', said David Hawker. [para] We have our own ministry David Hawker explained, 'and we don't see it as our calling to be in close fellowship with other evangelicals although we recognise God's work in them' [para] 'We had a number of close relationships when we joined EA in 1982 and more have developed since then', said David Hawker. [para] The difficulty arises over the interpretation of what 'good' and 'close' relationships means. [para] The Fellowship says it has 'good relationships' with individuals in the Ichthus Fellowship and the Sussex based Bethany Fellowship led by Colin Urquart. [para] But when we asked them, these fellowships saw the relationship with the Jesus Fellowship in a different light. [para] ‘Our contact with the Jesus Fellowship church has been minimal, said a spokesman for the Ichthus Fellowship. ‘Roger Forster has visited them but noone on the Ichthus team has preached there yet. We want to be fair to the church, but we have less relationship with them than with hundreds of other churches we have preached in’ [para] ‘It wouldn’t be true to say we are in fellowship with the Jesus Fellowship Church’ said Michael Baring an elder at Bethany Fellowship. ‘Our pastor, Colin Urquart has never visited them, neither has he ever met Noel Stanton’Bristol Sycamore 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Buzz, April 1986, in Bugbrooke - a brief History "1985 Prayerforce Fellowship made up of ex-community members issue a leaflet detailing their experiences and claiming the New Creation Christian Community is a cult. 1986 Evangelical alliance launch an inquiry into beliefs and practices of Jesus Fellowship church and finds it no longer qualifies for membership dues to isolationism"Bristol Sycamore 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Evangelicals Now (Jan 1987). The article is a response to one in a secular paper, the Freethinker, which in November 86 had been critical of the EA expulsion (as it put it) of the JFC in “The Evangelical Problem Family”. In response, ‘Evangelicals Now’ quotes Clive Calver, General Secretary of the EA:

“The Evangelical Alliance has endeavoured to research, influence and speak to situations which affect us in our world. It can only knit together churches and societies, within denominational strata, which are bonded by a common commitment to the basic fndamentals of evangelical belief. It can only act as an alliance and so requires these principles to be worked out in practice in a local area. This, the Jesus Fellowship has failed to do. As such it cannot remain in membership of the EA. [para] Membership of the EA denotes an attitude which is prepared to work with other evangelicals on a local basis, to share together, and learn from each other. Failure to do thismust result in exclusion from the Alliance, and the exclusiveness of the Bugbrooke Community has made it necessary to take these steps.”Bristol Sycamore 01:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

David Hawker, JA PR man for seven years confirms isolationism

David Hawker had been involved with the negotiations with the EA's General Secretary, Clive Calver and had urged Noel Stanton to meet with myself and John, recognising that if they didn't the EA would question the bonafides. His PR work made him feel increasingly that some criticisms were valid an dthat teh fellowship had indeed become isolationist. A great bust-up followed and he was forced to leave: Under the Heading, "Baptists Ban Bugbrooke; Strict leadership blamed" Buzz wrote "Ex-Bugbrooke press officer David Hawker claims the Community is isolationist in its attitude to other Christian groups. He was forced to leave there last year after 12 years membership when he suggested Bugbrooke get more involved with other Chrisian groups. ‘There’s a lack of realism’, he told Buzz. ‘They are out of touch and unaware of what God is doing in other Churches.” [below a picture of David Hawker]: “Forced Out: David Hawker, an elder of the Bugbrooke community and public relations man for seven years was forced to leave the controversial christan group when he suggested they should have more contact with Christian groups outside the Community”Bristol Sycamore 02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-Baptism

Buzz again(date to be checked, but reference to BU's recent decision to ban. circa Jan 87) : “The controversial midlands community, officially known as the Jesus Fellowship was banned from membership of the Baptist Union last year on a number of grounds, including re-Baptism of Christians already baptised by full immersion in established Baptist churches.[para] Doubts were also expressed over Noel Stanton’s authoritarian style of leadership and allegations over strict control over friendships, family visits and marriage, rigid discipline of children and total financial contro are made. [para] But Noel Stanton accused the Baptist Union’s ruling as ‘opposing God’s work by banning Bugbrooke from membership.”

The issue of re-Baptism is important to the BU because it implied that Bugbrooke did not acknowledge the validity of the conversions of Christians before they came into contact with the JFC….or the validity of Christian experiences in other churches. Defending the practice of re-baptism, Liz Donovan (temporary spokesperson) said, “If an individual, having been baptised elsewhere feels their baptism wasn’t very real, if they choose before God to be baptised again it’s entirely up to them”Bristol Sycamore 02:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nb. These late night writings after work will kill me so you will have to bear with me if there is a little delay now. I am waiting for a book in the post which will refer further (from a NPOV) to the allegations made in the pamphlet, and their consequences. Good night, allBristol Sycamore 02:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanks, Rumiton. That's a relief.Bristol Sycamore 10:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Evangelical Alliance

OK, here goes:

idea (Evangelical Alliance magazine), May 1999: NUMBERS GROW AS EA AGREES TO MULTIPLY One of the latest groups to join the Evangelical Alliance is the Multiply Christian Network, which links more than 30 churches in England and Wales with others abroad. Multiply was initiated in 1992 by the Jesus Fellowship Church, which withdrew its own membership from the Alliance in 1986 due to relational issues. Since then, positive efforts have been made by the leadership to improve their contact and working relationships with the wider Christian constituency at both local and national levels. During the past three years, informal contact has been taking place between the leadership team of the Jesus Fellowship Church and senior personnel of the Evangelical Alliance, in regard to them applying for membership. It was agreed that as a first step, Multiply should apply for membership. While many of the churches linked to Multiply are congregations of the Jesus Fellowship Church, there are 16 other independent churches that are partners in the network. Three of these are already members of the Evangelical Alliance. The Jesus Fellowship Church - though based in Nether Heyford, Northampton - has planted a number of congregations around Britain, each with local leaders, and the Jesus Fellowship now intends to apply on behalf of the whole church across the UK. Having received a number of endorsements from both local and national church leaders, the Evangelical Alliance expects to approve the Jesus Fellowship Church's application for membership later in 1999."

Christian Herald - 29 July 2000: JOINING THE EA 'FAMILY' ...Another high-profile movement who joined the EA family last autumn is the Jesus Fellow-ship Church — also known as the Jesus Army. The fellowship left the EA in the late 1980s in relation to issues with other evangelicals. John Smith explained: "They again have moved considerably since then. It is an organisation that has had a lot of allegations made against it, most of which are based on past reputation rather than present practice.

"We do take the business of consultation very seriously, and we do know there will be controversy over some of our membership decisions — we might even lose some friends, but we can't keep someone out of EA on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and innuendoes."

John Campbell 11:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, John, that all looks most informative. I am a bit pressed for time right now, but will look carefully soon. We will look at Bristol's sources just as carefully. Rumiton 12:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So as far as I can understand it at at the moment, the EA asked the JA to leave mainly because of the JA's refusal to operate as a team with other evangelicals, and from their insulting practice of rebaptising people whom the other Baptist churches had already baptised, plus the opprobrium from the other allegations that were in the air. Rumiton 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that pretty much sums it up, though I'd say there's more to it than the churches being insulted by rebaptism at Bugrooke, though there certainly was that too. The issues of Isolationism from other Christians and rebaptism are connected, because both speak of the JFC's attitude at the time to Christians outside their membership, whom Noel referred to as having "the form without the power". I have a source which will substantiate this (currently searching). Noel spoke in Baptism teaching (I have a tape which I am looking for - seen two years ago, so somewhere safe-) to previously baptised christians, suggesting they might well consider that their baptisms had been events at which God had not been present.Bristol Sycamore 22:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've muddled up the BU and EA. Help please. Is the JA still out of the BU? Any other comments so far? Rumiton 14:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

John will confirm this, but the JA has not been readmitted to the Baptist Union (BU).Bristol Sycamore 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(hope this edit works right as last time I messed up) The EA is different to the BU, The JA is in the EA but not the BU to my knowledge but I can't give you the relevant sources for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicpixie (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You have indeed muddled the BU and the EA :-). The chapel was founded as an independent congregation in 1805 and (presumably) became part of the baptist Union way back when. It joined the EA in 1982, at the invitation of the then General Secretary Gilbert Kirby. As the main stated issue with the BU was that the Bugbrooke Baptist Church was no longer functioning as a local baptist church, and in view of the increased geographic spread of the Jesus Army since the mid 1980s, we have not reapplied for membership, nor are we likely to. It is most realistic to continue as an independent stream within the baptist tradition (like many others). I'm not sure that the expulsion & readmission saga is where the main article ought to begin, however. John Campbell 09:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify some of what Pete has quoted above, I include other quotes from Buzz, April 1986, other portions of which were quoted above by Pete Eveleigh:

[Clive Calver:]"We have encouraged the Jesus Fellowship (often called the Bugbrooke Community after the village where it began) to develop links with evangelicals in the local area." He added there were no doctrinal grounds for the EA's decision. ... membership of the EA is dependent on the member church or organisation being in agreement with its statement of faith, adhering to certain codes of practices and being in close fellowship with other evangelicals. It is on this last count that the Jesus Fellowship has been found wanting by the EA executive made up of church leaders from various denominations. ... A local Baptist minister the Rev Harry Whittaker who had a son in the community and Anglican vicar the Rev John Latham who lives near one of the community's houses, both told Buzz they had a positive attitude towards the Jesus People. "We ought to be glad about Bugbrooke," said Harry Whittaker, "when so many churches are dead." "I see nothing less than God's love among them them." said John Latham "stemming from a radical discipleship which is a reproach to most of us." ... Theologically the church, led by charismatic preacher Noel Stanton, appears to be as sound as a bell -- believing in salvation by faith, teh authority of Scripture, baptism in water and the Holy Spirit and the exercise of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. ... Worst still, a group called the Prayerforce Fellowship are actually praying against the activities of the church... (my emphasis) John Campbell 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see:

Evangelism Today, June 1986:

Clive Calver, EA's General Secretary stated: "After lengthy discussions between the EA and leaders of the Jesus Fellowship , and after consultation with respected Christian leaders in various parts of the country, it became clear that the Bugbrooke Church was not in 'good standing' with fellow evangelicals. I would stress that we found nothing heretical in their position or practices that would have specifically barred them from membership of the EA, but it is not consistent for a church which isolates itself from other evangelicals in the area to be in the EA. (my emphasis)

It's important to see that the specific claims made by Pete and John did not meet with favour by the EA, and it would be misleading to repeat them here as the grounds for the parting of the ways with the EA.

Without wishing to disparage you, John, I don't think that is an honest reflection of the EA's position, possibly because you weren't personally involved?. I had a lengthy phone conversation with Clive Calver who explained that if your elders were not willing to discuss our criticisms with us at the EA, they could not easily be addressed. They would need to be investigated. The investigation proved unnecessary, as it happened, because your isolationism, which was discovered in the 6 hour meeting, on its own was grounds for exclusion. You had not been cleared of the allegations, just spared further investigation into them.Bristol Sycamore 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind admitting, John, that I thought the EA's decision to use ecclesiology as a way of getting rid of you was pretty lame at the time. From a PR point of view it was a coup (because you would not be able to use it, as you do now, as a way of asserting your orthodoxy), but I regretted the fact that it let the church off the hook when it came to issues of doctrine and praxis which would not then get examined properly by the EA. It was a political decision. You had refused to address praxis with your critics, so they disposed of the problem of the embarrassment you were causing with your controversial praxis, by expelling you.Bristol Sycamore 18:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is much less material on the BU and I think the best I can find is the reference I have already provided above from Chryssides and Collinson. Apart from Fire in our Hearts, of course. Again, there is an apparent danger of saying more than the sources support because of Pete's pressure. John Campbell 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you mean, John? Bristol Sycamore 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Our enemies are sacred because they make us strong." (Native American saying.) Rumiton 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the JA, after the EA expulsion, would work to change the more extreme policies, which we had been campaigning to highlight as being damaging, I wish the JA could look back and see us as well-intentioned, rather than as persecutors. If they had tolerated criticism within the JA, perhaps some of us would have been less inclined to leave.Bristol Sycamore 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Love your enemies" (Jesus Christ) John Campbell 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Would have been nice. Preferable to having my minister told I was mentally unstable, and the Independent reporter told I was a pervert. Bristol Sycamore 18:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have checked our correspondance from that time, and any comments concerning you are extremely mild and factual. I could not comment beyond that. John Campbell 17:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What correspondence would that be, then, John? The fact remains that your church routinely shuts critics up by describing them to others as mentally unstable, never really one of us, etc etc...and Noel's comments to my minister were incredible for a churchman, though they did some good, in that afterwards my church was rather supportive of my efforts to blow the whistle on the JFC. Resolute's comments to the Independent were completely unforgiveable - and hard to construe as loving your enemies.Bristol Sycamore 18:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, from Fire in our Hearts, some very general comments in these extracts from Roger Forster (leader of Ichthus Christian Fellowship) interview with Noel Stanton:

Roger: Do you think you could have avoided some of the suspicion you encountered in Christian circles?

Noel: Yes, we could have been more open and trusting of other Christians. We felt unjustly persecuted, and felt that accepting isolation was really the only answer. I think we were wrong in the way it got hold of us.

Roger: How do you see your links with other evangelicals and charismatics developing?

Noel: We realise that if we are going to make maximum impact with the gospel then we all have to learn to recognise other churches and networks and not to compete; to give them space, refuse to duplicate and so on. The world has to see that we do love and trust each other. I’m happy about bringing into being more leadership links in those ways.

Roger: How can we help you overcome the prejudices whichsome people hold against you in some of the cities where you are working?

Noel: ... We’re very keen for Christian leaders to visit us, ask questions, see things and make whatever enquiries they want. ... Secondly, we need to be forgiven for situations which have arisen over the years which we’ve not handled too well. It’s the way of pioneers to hold to the vision and press into it and not deal too well with the ‘spin-offs’. We’ve made many mistakes in the course of our journey.

Roger: I notice, Noel, that you sense there are things where you do need the forgiveness of your brothers.

Noel: There are bound to be cases where hurts have resulted from our handling of situations and we are sorry about that. We have moved quite fast and not everyone has been able to keep up with us! So, yes, where we haven’t been sensitive to others, we ask forgiveness.

John Campbell 10:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't bad as PR goes, but without an admission of the things that went on, the expressions of regret strike me as nothing more than and attempt to sweep the past under the table - and make the church look good in Roger Forster's eyes. Does the church acknowledge that unreasonable pressure was put on people to become celibates, that it interfered in people's lives to an unreasonable extent, that it "heavy shepherded", that the church taught that all other Christians were part of the Kingdom of the World, that if you left you must lose God's covering, must backslide into apostasy and be damned...etc. because if these things are not admitted, the apology means little really? An apology without an admission of the wrong done is empty.Bristol Sycamore 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to assist in the process of writing this article, not engaging in a fruitless argument with you, Pete. John Campbell 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your reluctance to address the core criticisms only goes to reinforce my scepticism about Noel's comments to Roger Forster, John. As a church you want to be forgiven for making mistakes without actually acknowledging the mistakes that were made....or even indeed that they were mistakesBristol Sycamore 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving?

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)

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)

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)

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)

EA and BU suggestions

This is getting a bit mangled, so I take the liberty of rearranging the material slightly to get the right points attached to each body. Deal with it as you wish, Rumiton -- I'm not attempting to write the article, and I've only adjusted the content peripherally. I'll argue the content later, if necessary.

==Baptist Union and Evangelical Alliance membership==

From its inception, the Jesus Army aroused controversy. The original Bugbrooke Jesus Fellowship had long been a part of the Baptist Union. However the sudden expansion in members had made the new church a nationwide movement, which took it out of the ambit of the Baptist Union, which places authority within a specific congregation. The JA was also accused of "isolationism," exemplified by the JA practice of sometimes rebaptising new members who had already been baptised by other Baptist churches, implying that Christian baptism elsewhere may have been invalid. Conseqently, in 1986 the Jesus Army was expelled from the Baptist Union, leaving it on the margins of the Baptist denomination.

In 1982, the Jesus Fellowship had joined the Evangelical Alliance. One of the EA membership requirements was that the church remain in close fellowship with other local evangelical churches. Earlier in 1986, the Evangelical Alliance had launched an inquiry into the beliefs and practices of the Jesus Fellowship Church and found that it no longer qualified for membership, citing much the same problems as had the Baptist Union. But at least as relevant in both cases was the fact that the rise of the JA came at a time when an international welter of anti-cult activity was under way. The allegedly authoritarian role of the JA leader, the JA attitude towards celibacy (expected of unmarried members), 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." A number of member churches threatened to pull out if the Jesus Fellowship Church was allowed to remain in the Alliance.

During the 1990s, the JA examined and changed many of its practices, and in 1999 applied for readmission to the Evangelical Alliance. In autumn 1999, the Jesus Fellowship Church was readmitted to the Evangelical Alliance. The Jesus Army has never applied for readmission to the Baptist Union.

John Campbell 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that John, but it looks like we coincided. I hope I fixed most of the problems. It's late here, I'll have another look tomorrow. Cheers. Rumiton 14:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, John. Good stuff, thanks. One or two things I'd tweak, but this is very fair.Bristol Sycamore 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Some further (hopefully uncontroversial) suggested tweaks indicated by underlining above. John Campbell (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

not trying to make the BU look fickle ... Citation from Northampton Chronicle and Echo 14/11/1986 entitled 'Why we expelled sect, by Baptists' The Baptist Union says it was embarrassed into expelling the Bugbrooke-based Jesus Fellowship from its organisation, because of bad publicity about the sect.The Union, based in London, took the unusual step of severing links with the Fellowship two days ago, but it had declined to give any reasons.Now it has issued a statement, saying that adverse publicity about the sect over many years had caused 'embarrassment' to the union.The statement also says the Fellowship was expelled because it was becoming a national rather than a local organisation and because it had a 'lack of involvement in denominational life and a unilateral programme of recruitment.' --Mike Aldrich 19:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation, article in Northampton Mercury and Herald, 22/11/86 entitled 'We shall not be moved - Jesus People to carry on regardless' The latest blow to the sect, which owns and runs numerous businesses including several Northampton shops, came from 129 of the 137 council members of the Baptist Union. The Jesus Fellowship was expelled from the organisation because of a lack of involvement in denominational life and unilateral programme of recruitment. A statement from the union also said the Fellowship was becoming a national rather than local organisation, and spoke of 'embarrassment' over bad publicity. --Mike Aldrich 19:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't looking in the right place. By the way, that does remind me that the BU saga took place after the EA one.

Daventry Weekly Express 20 November 1986: "The three reasons given for the expulsion were that the Jesus fellowship could no longer be recognised as a local Baptist church because it had grown too large. They were also accused of being only nominal members of teh baptist Union and not involving themselves with other churches. The adverse publicity they have attracted over the years was said to be embarrassing."

Milton Keynes Mirror 20 November 1986: "The [Baptist] Union gave three reasons for the expulsion, described as an unusual step. They say the church is no longer a local baptist church, that the church has had only a nominal membership of teh Union with little involvement in baptist life, and that it has attracted bad publicity."

Methodist Recorder 20 November 1986: "The Council of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland has expelled from the Union the Jesus Fellowship Church (Baptist) at Bugbrooke. The council's general secretary, the Rev Bernard Green, said the council wish to make it clear that the Jesus Fellowship was free to act as they believed God was leading them. 'Our decision does not imply any judgment of their standing before God.' He said the decision was made because developments in church government and authority and the change from a local church to a form of nationwide organisation made it impossible for the Union to recognise the fellowship as a local Baptist church. Mr Green said the Fellowship's membership had been almost entirely nominal for many years, as illustrated by their lack of involvement in denominational life and their unilateral programme of recruitment and extension in the close vicinity of other Baptist churches without consultation. There was also the issue of adverse publicity for many years. Mr Green stressed the union's decision was not made with any anti-charismatic or anti-house church motives."

John Campbell 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not contact the BU themselves? Perhaps someone neutral could contact the Baptist Union and actually ask them? Interestingly, The Rev. Jonathan Edwards, MA, General Secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain is on the Board of Reference of the Cult Information Centre, which lists the JA as a group about which it has concerns.Bristol Sycamore 17:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Businesses and finances - more quotes

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)

Outreach activities - quotes

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)

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)

Jesus Centres - quotes

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)

Celibacy and marriage

Please could we address this subject, Rumiton? The bit in parentheses about celibacy for non-marrieds made me think of a correction, which is that, at least in my time, celibacy was required in marriage, too, except for procreation, and William Shaw's book, Spying in Guru Land (London: Fourth Estate, 1994) suggests that at least until then that was still the case:

Shaw noted: "Marriage is 'marriage for Jesus'. It's celebrated by large joyous ceremonies presided over by Noel. Sexual intercourse is for procreation and, though not totally banned, contraception remains discouraged. Married couples are expected to sleep in separate beds."Bristol Sycamore 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is Shaw speaking on his own behalf. Instead of trying to discredit Shaw (or me?) can we just agree or not, John, on the content of his comment? Bristol Sycamore 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

John will know more about William Shaw than I do. The fact is that I hadn't heard of him until a week or two ago, but he spent a year infiltrating new religious movements/cults and writing about them. Professor Laurie Taylor describes it as 'brave, sympathetic and sometimes very funny' book. In his acknowledgements, Shaw cites Dr Eileen Barker (see article citations) as a major source of background material.

Shaw described the developing sexual puritanism / roles of men and women /courtship thus: (quote)Other steps were less bucolic and less liberal: the Jesus Fellowship began to build a new sexual puritanism. Men were urged to seek the fellowship of other men. Women were housed separately and discouraged from wearing trousers……………….One member wrote in glutinous prose of those early days, ‘Men took up their leadership and husbands brought a godly authority to their families. The sisters were beautiful in their loving support and made way for the men to find their strength and potential.’ (para) Sex is full of satanic temptation. In a community full of young people, desire is regarded as a suspect device that could go off at any second. Brothers and sisters are urged to avoid danger zones – like lingering alone in the company of a member of the opposite sex. Unmarried members are encouraged to spend time with their own gender. If not celibate, it is men who take the lead in forming relationships. Pairings are carefully watched over. It’s an icy ritual, something out of an Austen novel, but without the coy larks. According to the fellowship guidelines, if a man falls in love with a woman member, he must go to his elder and tell him. If the woman is then agreeable the elder must publicise the fact, so that any other men who might want to marry the same woman may make his desires known.”Bristol Sycamore 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Celibacy – the highest moral calling Shaw (circa 1994): “More than 250 members have committed themselves to the celibacy that the Jesus Army urges on its members as the highest moral calling, higher even than marriage”Bristol Sycamore 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Most interesting, by way of illustration was a section describing the celebration of marrieds and celibates on stage: “Six new married couples are asked up on stage. Some are old and grey, others are young and covered in badges and mottoes. They stand there, hand in hand, smiling shyly out at us. (para)And then Noel asks all the celibates and probationary celibates to join him on stage, and the aisles stream with single men and women. The true scale of Stanton’s achievement becomes apparent. (para) It takes almost ten minutes for all of them to cram on stage. There are hundreds, old and young. Men clasp each other. Women embrace and cheer. This is Noel’s proudest moment, turning away the demon of promiscuity from the twentieth century.”Bristol Sycamore 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the book quotes my pamphlet (1985) (section: Sexual Relations Restricted) thus:

(quote)His [Peter Eveleigh's] account of Bugbrooke portrayed it as a place where members were bullied by the straitjacket morality to remain celibate: 'Marriage is taught as being inferior to celibacy and is referred to as the “lower way”. For those who have been allowed to marry there is considerable restraint upon their domestic life. Sexual relationships within marriage are considered to be so potentially unhealthy that the “official” policy of the Community is for couples, from the earliest days of wedlock, to sleep apart in single beds. Contraception is “officially” prohibited. (para) The women have no significant choice in the selection of a partner except the right to say no to an unwanted courtship, though it has not been unknown for “sister” to be put under pressure to marry against her desire in the church’s interest. For men it is often a long and humiliating process, often drawn out over several years, before their desire to enter into courtship will be approved by the Community leadership. Many requests are turned down. (para) Engaged couples who join the Community are expected to separate and in common with “all” other men and women are not allowed to display or talk of affection for one another without the critical approval of the Eldership. Only men over twenty-five may expect to be allowed to marry. (end quote) Bristol Sycamore 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, Shaw is here illustrating the opposition of ex-members by quoting Pete's pamphlet verbatim, from 'Marriage is taught...' right through to 'allowed to marry.' Does that make it into a Reliable Source? John Campbell 12:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Far from making it clear, you are deliberately obscuring it, John. Only the last quote is Shaw reflecting my views. What IS CLEAR is that nothing in Shaw's own observations contradicts anything I said 8 years earlier, except perhaps a softening of the view of contraception.Bristol Sycamore 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"You are deliberately obscuring it" How do you know what I am doing deliberately? I had thought that spelling out "from 'Marriage is taught...' right through to 'allowed to marry.'" was fairly clear, given that the incompleteness of the quotation marks may otherwise have obscured the fact that the section I indicated all forms part of the quotation from you. John Campbell 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you are obscuring it without intending to do so. I used quote marks and Quote and endquote. I used quote and endquote to indicate the start of the excerpt and single speech marks to start the bit from my pamphlet because the book uses double quote marks to highlight particular words.Bristol Sycamore 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, this journalist has not established a reputation for scholarship in the field of group dynamics, comparative religions, new religious movements or any related subjects, or certainly not in the way that researchers such as Chryssides, Barret et al have. He apears to be something of a "controversialist," a producer of eyebrow raising ephemera. In addition, his stated MO, that of infiltrating organisations by misrepresenting himself in order to profit from writing a book, raises ethical questions. If he lied to the JA, might he still be lying in his book? That does not mean he cannot be used, but that he should be used with caution. In any case he does not seem to make these statements using his own voice, but as a quotation, and to illustrate the opposition the JA faces from ex-members. His phrase "sexual puritanism" carries negative bias. We have a statement that celibacy was required for unmarried members. Is more required? And if so, how might it be neutrally expressed? Rumiton 13:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Come off it, Rumiton. You are an educated man: you must know that all evidence is socially constructed, academic evidence no less so; indeed my own postgraduate studies on the philosophy of science showed that all theses are socially determined by the scientists' own pre-suppositions. How much more so, when the subject of the study has a vested interest in a particular point of view? Someone who has not told the subject of the study that he is studying them is more likely to get a true picture. "Sexual puritanism" may strike you as negative, but if you read the description and if John admits that that is pretty much exactly how things are, albeit with a Shaw slant, wouldn't you consider it puritanical, nonetheless? ALL his statements are in his own voice except the last one quoting me.Bristol Sycamore 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You ask if more is needed than a statement that celibacy was required of unmarried members? And of course if an accurate picture is not required, then no it isn't. But what you have here is someone who is not a member or an ex-member - therefore less biased than me or John, by wiki standards, who has spent time in the JA and has given a pretty accurate impression of the church. Rather than attempting to discredit the author, I'd be more interested to know what John actually disagrees with in Shaw's description.Bristol Sycamore 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As regards Shaw being a controversialist, is it possible that that is just the way the book was marketed? I found the text really rather mild mannered and if anything, rather frustratingly sympathetic to the JA. If you haven;t read it, can I ask that you get hold of a copy, Rumiton? Bristol Sycamore 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We are descending into argufying again. This will lead nowhere good. It is in the interests of all editors here that the article now reaches a state which is acceptable to all, even if barely so. The article will be stable, because any further editor trying to insert POV will be met by the advice that the sources here are impeccable, and that he/she should go away. (Be assured that the POV sources, whether pro or con, will not be impeccable.) There will then be no future edit wars, which will not take up the rest of your lives, will not further contribute to your hypertension and so forth. A consummation, I am sure you will both agree, devoutly to be wished. So we need to be very sure of the sources used now. In my opinion Shaw's writing style (even the name of his book) raises serious questions. I acknowledge that there is no such thing as cultural neutrality, but there are reasonable guidelines. In the excerpt quoted he appears to be jeering at his subjects after infiltrating them and pretending friendship. As you say Pete, I haven't read the whole book, and am not really willing to buy my own copy to do so. But as I said, he is usable, but not while making exceptional or controversial claims. If we allow him to do so we open the door for a future editor who wants to use someone similarly dubious, or slightly more so, and the whole thing starts up again. If you feel this judgement is wrong, please feel free to post the excerpt on WP:RSN (Reputable Sources Noticeboard) or link there to this section, and ask for the opinions of other neutral editors. I will not be offended at all. On the other hand, if you and John can agree here on a proper description of the JA approach to sex in general, and members' sexual behaviour in particular, that would be great. Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tricky situation. I wrote to you last night, Rumiton, to say that I didn't feel that I wanted to go on with this as it is just making me angry and my home and work life is suffering. But as I haven't heard back from you (time difference etc), I hope you won't mind me responding, given that you are trying to bring this thing to a close. So, here goes:Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Pete & I did agree on the slight restructuring of the BU/EA section I suggested under Talk:Jesus_Army#EA_and_BU_suggestions, which put the right concerns to the right bodies. I think we would both agree that this would be more accurate that the version we have at present. Could you agree to that, please, Rumiton? The only other tweaks to that would be:

(a) (uncontroversial) some indication that the EA story took place before the BU one.

FineBristol Sycamore (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(b) adding 'community' before 'members' when talking about handing over material goods, not when talking about celibacy. I think Pete will agree that that is truthful and accurate.

Yes, though it should be made clear that the community members made up the vast majority at the time, with non-community (known as "Baptism only") membership designed essentially for those married to non-Christians.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There were probably more than you think, up to one third from my recent reading. John Campbell (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(c) clarification of the celibacy bit. Given that 'celibacy' currently seems to mean just sexual abstinence as opposed to 'a commitment to sexual abstinence', it ought to say that unmarried members were [strongly?] encouraged to make a commitment to celibacy. (That's the allegation, by the way. I would say they were [strongly?] encouraged to consider making a commitment to celibacy). Certainly (and I think Pete will agree), it wouldn't be true that committed celibacy was expected of all unmarried members (otherwise there would have been no marriages, such as mine).

John Campbell (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think we should change definitions to keep up with the times, but instead define our terms in the article - according to the parlance of the JFC. You could, for instance, say that abstinence from sex was expected of all un-married members and that while some "could" marry, the majority were strongly urged to make a commitment to life-long celibacy. I am disappointed, by the way, that though Shaw substantiated the allegation, which was current, that sex in marriage was for procreation only, it seems to be being quietly overlooked. If celibacy really is only to be addressed in parentheses, in few words, it ought to say “celibacy for all members, except for procreation in marriage”. I agree with John that life-long commitments to celibacy were not expected of all unmarried members. However, I would want to add that the “relating process” (overseen courtship ritual) with its implication of taking the “lower way” seemed calculated to make any other decision than celibacy onerous, impracticable, and even rather humiliating.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

To which I will just say, nonsense. certainly not my expereince in any way. I'll post some reliable sources later. John Campbell (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, I'd expect no less. But flooding this site with words won't change the facts, even if it obscures them.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that we are apparently bringing the process to an end, if Rumiton doesn't mind, I shall wihdraw my decision to leave and stick things out until agreement can be reached. But as it is putting rather a strain on work and home life, I will ask you both to be a little patient with me, if I spend slightly less time on things. If agreement is needed, please nudge me.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. As neither you nor I put that bit in about the Anglican church, John, and as it could be seen as misleading, possibly even deliberately so, can we agree to remove it?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the comparison with the Anglican Church under current practices is unneccessary and Anglo-centric. However, from recent reading it is based on other quotes, such as William Kay in Encyclopedia of New Religions: "Those who do not wish to live within the community may remain covenant membes while living in their own homes and earning money outside the community. In a sense they operate like Christians who attend a particularly close-knit Sunday congregation. There are also a variety of ways in which Christians may belong to the Jesus Fellowship with a looser commitment." Another reference, which I can't locate at the moment makes as similar but different comparison, so I don't think there is any reason to call it deliberately misleading.

The inclusion of the Anglican Church in the section on beliefs is more relevant, as both the Church of England and the Lutheran Church specifically mention the three historic creeds referred to there. John Campbell (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't concede that non-community members are expected to participate in rather more than merely a Sunday service, John? I mean, are they not expected to tithe, to attend agape on Tuesdays, to take part in evangelism, to go to Servant/serving groups(or whatever they are called now)mid week, to attend other meetings, etc? I'll concede that you probably have some in very loose association, comparable with the general CofE, but the house churches in the Anglican tradition are hardly typical, themselves, and so comparisons with a denomination you have ordinarily referred to (amongst yourselves) as "nominal" might mislead your ordinary lay reader of wikipedia. I concede the point about theology being similar, if we leave aside Two Kingdom theology and the possibility of losing salvation or God's covering when you leave the JABristol Sycamore (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, people do what they like. John Campbell (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Things really have changed then! But you will concede the point, that members of your Jesus Revolution will be found at a meeting on Tuesday (which is nigh on compulsory, for the covenant meal), on Wednesday, on Friday and on Sunday; that being revolutionary requires rather more that a Sunday-only church service? I can't believe we are even arguing the point. Surely, the majority of the church are not now merely "nominal christians", as Noel always characterised the established church?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

back to celibacy

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)

Celibacy & marriage - quotes

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)

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)

That isn't what I said at all. John Campbell (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

  Noel was always clear that marrieds must avoid lust in their married lives, was he not?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Citation from - 'Cults and New Religious Movements: A Reader.', 2003 (edited by L Dawson), ISBN 1405101814 The Jesus Army is more extreme perceiving marriage as the 'lower way', inferior to celibacy, which is promoted in Celibate Cutting Edge, their 'inspirational bulletin of celibacy'. page237..--Mike Aldrich (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)