Talk:Jesus Army/Archive 2

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

Some other quotes

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

Wright, Nigel in Charismatic Christianity p.66

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over-critical style

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

JA Business ventures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charity and legal obligations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenant - life-long implications made clear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non covenant members in fairly regular attendance 406

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Fellowship Community Trust - some quotes

Jesus Army Charitable Trust - some more quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charity Commission listing

Guidestar listing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please review article now

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

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

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

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

Covenant membership - some quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celibacy again again

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

Suggestions for fine tweaking

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

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

"Orthodoxy"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kay in Encyclopedia of New Religions

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

Unconventional maybe, unorthodox, no

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweaks -- Intro (agreed)

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

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

Postpositions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffrey K. Hadden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pictures (active)

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

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

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

Night time evangelism in London

Friendship evangelism in Camden

Worship in Giant Marquee

Open-air baptism

JA march and coach

JA march in London

Northampton Jesus Centre by night

Northampton Jesus Centre by day

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

Tweaks -- BU and EA (agreed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweaks -- References (3) (agreed)

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

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

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

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

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

Tweaks -- References (agreed)

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

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

Tweaks -- References (2) (agreed)

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

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

Tweaks -- Current practices (agreed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweaks -- Current practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweaks -- Beliefs (agreed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this is helpful!

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

Tweak -1969 (agreed)

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

It just niggles me a bit

(but is not an issue, as such)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweaks (suggestions) (agreed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References - JA books by the JA themselves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State of play now

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Army baptism

Northampton Jesus Centre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you guys feel about

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

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

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

Unsourced new additions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested additions

JESUS ARMY ONLINE

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

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

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

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

MEMBERSHIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disputed link

I have again removed the link John Aldrich reinstated to his own website and forum. In my opinion as a neutral editor and that of a neutral Wikipedia administrator (Jossi) they do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia's external linking policy. This decision can be appealed by any editor by filing a request for comment. If the link is reinstated without doing this, the editor who does so risks a charge of disruptive editing. Rumiton (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to see I haven't missed much and that you two have kept things stable. Thanks. The chap's name is Mike, incidentally, and I noticed when I went to JAW just now that all postings have to be approved by the webmaster there before being posted. I believe this ought to go some way to satisfying the objection about his forum. I wonder if Mike put his forum up after making this change, assuming that wiki would honour the change. Also, if there is no tag on the article page, could someone be forgiven for not knowing that he needs approval from Jossi first; in other words, having complied with Jossi's initial objection, does he need to appeal?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No need for "forgiving," it's OK. But that is the situation now. Further reinstatement of the link would constitute "edit warring." Rumiton (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, I am en route and therefore can't contact Mike via email, and don't feel totally au fait with what has happened here, but can I ask you to explain here why the JAW link is not allowed, now that Mike's site previews and approves postings in precisely the way that he told it must if it was to be considered an acceptable link? It seems to me that Mike has met the conditions and is not being disruptive, as you seem to imply. I posted a message on the JAW forum this afternoon, which had to be approved before it was put up, so the system seems to work.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I purposely kept out of this part of the debate until Jossi had commented, as I did not want my personal experience to interfere with the process. John Campbell (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good move, John. Sorry for getting Mike's name wrong. I am learning about this area, which I have not much encountered before. Wikipedia cannot direct readers to a biased site, which to me this seems to be, exemplified by the newspaper sources quoted. But I will wait to hear more from the admins and other editors. There may well be other problematic areas for WP:EL. Rumiton (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello ... I am not a judge or an enforcer or rules. You will need to navigate this dispute by applying existing policies, and by seeking help from non-involved editors when you get stuck. Happy editing! Rumiton is doing a good job here as an informal mediator, so take advantage from his offer to help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. Well, I will be away for a few days and not sure if I can log on, but as soon as I can I'll take another look. Rumiton (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, I think the ball is in your court. The objection that Mike was given previously was that people could post anything on his site, even if potentially libellous. He has overcome that objection, it seems to me, and it would be wrong to appear to move the goalposts now that he has done so. I think you should assume his good faith and not treat the placing of his site on the article as an act of vandalism, when he had met your objection before doing so.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about vandalism? That is a serious charge, and one I did not make. Reinstating the link after an admin told us it did not comply with guidelines was a simple error on Mike's behalf. No problem, I think he is pretty new here. But I said that if he put it back again after being told this, it might be classed as "disruptive editing," which is really just bad manners, though if repeated could be serious. If the site and forum have altered in their nature and practice and are no longer what they were when rejected then we can take another look. After I have my little holiday. I am frankly getting quite sick of some of this sh*t. Rumiton (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, are you still assuming my good faith - or Mike's? Maybe you should do what I have done, and get right away from this, rather than letting it get you to the point of being offensive.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pete, I suggest you give Rumiton a few days to have his break, and then for him to come back to reflect on the JAW site. I guess that at the same time anyone interested ought to read Wikipedia's external linking policy, if they haven't done so already. The next step would be (as already suggested) for you to file a request for comment if the disagreement over whether JAW should be linked continues. John Campbell (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, re-Rumiton. On the request for comment, I misunderstood, I thought that was down to Mike. If anyone can do it, would it be possible for you to do it, as I have a huge load on my plate just now and this is low priority for me just now? Thanks John. PeterBristol Sycamore (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, break done. I just spent 90 minutes looking over the Jesus Army Watch site and forum, including the mildly witty posts in which I recognised (barely) myself. I still feel pretty much the same way about the site, that it is not neutral enough to be a Wikipedia link, which must be to the same encyclopedic standard as Wiki itself. The information section, to me, particularly adopts a jeering tone, and many (not all) of the newspaper articles quoted are written in a lurid, sensationalist style. The forum, while now commendably moderated, now has the problem that it contains very little hard information about the Jesus Army. Just about everything else, it seems to me. Rumiton (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the allegation that I wrote "offensively," I was responding to demands like "...specify the real (and truthful) reason why the link has been removed" and to ominous references to "...other suggestions as to why it was removed already being put forward." These were clear allegations that I have a conflict of interest, a more serious thing for a neutral editor to be accused of than you may know. I understand that Mike is new to the culture of Wikipedia, and I also understand that when one holds strong views on a subject, disagreement can be seen as bias. I have personal subjects like that myself. But the alarming thing is that Pete and John did not defend me or the article as it now stands. It does not look good for the stability of the article or the prevention of future unpleasantness. Anyway, if the subject of JAW linking is not considered settled, the next thing that must be done is to raise a request for comment. Try to phrase the request as clearly and accurately as you can so as to get replies you can really use. You are garnering opinions on whether the JAW site and forum are acceptable under the Wikipedia external links policy. Rumiton (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you didn't feel supported, Rumiton. I have nothing but esteem for the way you have steered this process. John Campbell (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly emotions have run high recently and maybe that is largely because we are all pretty tired of this. I am sorry you feel unsupported, Rumiton, but I honestly hadn't picked up on any sense that you were under attack; my feelings, on the contrary, were sympathetic to Mike's position. I have known him for donkeys' years and have always known him to be very cool and level-headed, so for him to have got as incensed as clearly he has done, he has to have felt very seriously insulted by value judgements made about his site. I think wikipedia has a rather deluded sense of its own importance and in upholding its rules legalistically we run the risk of deluding ourselves about the quality of its content (generally. Our own article is good), while excluding large amounts of credible, valid information for academically pompous reasons. Together, we have written something really worthwhile, and I am grateful for that, I really am, but I am concerned that we should not stifle attempts by others to contribute. I don't think John or I defended the article because it didn't need defending - it is intact; and we didn't defend you, Rumiton, because we didn't think you were being attacked; Mike was. I did however think your language was rather strong - and seemed directed at me.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

With no disrespect towards John, I think he has not get involved with the JAW argument because your position, Rumiton, defends his desire to exclude access to articles which could show the JA in a bad light. He will not wish to challenge that position.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I have failed to give you a better opinion of the way Wikipedia does things. I think John's side in all this has probably lost more ground through these negotiations than has the ex-members' side, mostly through previous content being rejected as promotional or unsupported by neutral expert sources. He has been remarkably philosophical and good graced throughout the process. Anyway, that's as far as I go. I think you have a fairly good, neutral article now, that has every chance of being stable if the reasons for its current shape are understood. It's up to you guys to make that happen. Bye. Rumiton (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, I wouldn't want you to go without knowing how grateful I am for everything you have done for everyone involved in this article. You mustn't go away thinking that my own disdain for the pompousness of wiki reflects badly on you or that I don't respect the fact that you are upholding wiki values consistently. I just believe that ALL writing is socially constructed, academic writing no less so. Neutrality is a myth and claims to it are intellectually dishonest. It is far better if writers declare their interests so that readers can decide for themselves about the truth of something they are reading. Please don't go away taking the heat of the argument as a personal slight. I am sorry you don't think better of me, by the way, but there you go. John and I will, I hope, keep the article stable. Thanks again. All the best, Peter Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. I have only good wishes for you all. But I can't resist saying something about Wikipedia's "rather deluded sense of its own importance" and the "pompousness of Wiki". Think of any subject of significance and Google it (go ahead and do this.) You will probably see a Wikipedia entry in the top 5 lines. When you check it, you will almost certainly find a good, factual and surprisingly neutral (within your caveat about neutrality) article, made so by ordinary people following the Wiki Rules and Guidelines. That's why millions of people are using Wikipedia every day. No one can predict the future, but right now Wiki is the most significant general source of information in use in the world, and growing. Its importance could scarcely BE over estimated. All the best. Rumiton (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, I doubt that anyone could have negotiated a better article on the JA on wiki than you have, but it is, as we have all said, a compromise, and as jossi has said quite candidly, its job is not to seek to reflect the truth. Yes, wikipedia is a massively significant resource, but that is not because it presents factual accuracy, per se, but because of the way it is placed on Google search lists (I know, a friend of mine runs a company to guarantee his clients a place in the top 5). Ordinary readers have expectations of wiki as a conventional encyclopedia, so may put great store by it. But the process has shown that readers will only get a very partial and negotiated impression of the truth. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am impressed by the way the discussions result in a fact-based article that excludes wilder claims. It hardly stands against Wikipedia that unsubstantiated statements are not allowed! John Campbell (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree about the quality of the article we have had a part in, John, but just because some claims are, as you call them, "wilder" does not make them untrue. My problem is with the notion that if an academic says something is true, wiki accept it as substantiated, as if academics are neutral, which anyone who has been one or has mixed with them must know to be a myth. We have seen in our discussions of Hadden for instance, that there is a very definite bias in sociological research about the "cult phenomenon". I happen to have a lot of respect for Eileen Barker, as another example, but it is easy to anticipate her stand on anything she is asked about at interview. What we have is a very partial view of the JA, not because what has been excluded cannot be proved but because it can't be substantiated using wiki rules.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

beliefs amendment

could we add at end of first paragraph of beliefs section "Some of the mor controversial beliefs of the Jesus Army are contained in the document "Kingdom Manifesto" available on its website".

http://www.jesus.org.uk/kingdommanifesto.pdf Moonwalkers (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is phrased in a NPOV manner. But in any case, the link to "We Believe" in the external links section at the end of the article is more appropriate and in the correct place. the link in the body of the article to the Jesus Army website was removed during editing for NPOV reasons. John Campbell (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

the phrasing could be changed to "the Jesus Army also believes..." and add it at the end as a pdf file? Moonwalkers (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I take John's point about the use of the term "controversial" being apparently NPOV (is that right, John?), but I infer from your comment, Moonwalker, that the doctrines contained in the link are not entirely orthodox ones and that this point might be lost if nothing more than a link is provided to indicate this in the text. Please could you highlight the points of concern, so that we know what we are discussing here and can consider whether an edit needs to be made. I hope you feel that is fair, John.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy for it to be included simply as a pdf file. I don't have time for all the ins and outs of the theology. It is important that it is included however, as it gives a much more rounded view of the churches beliefs. Moonwalkers (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Moonwalker, do you feel there is anything distinct or unorthodox about the "Kingdom Manifesto", which would mark it out as different in emphasis or even belief from other members of the E.A. (you used the word "controversial") ? And, if not, can you explain why you feel it is necessary to provide greater detail, given that a link already exists to the JA's "We Believe" site? If the claim is that the doctrine is controversial, it would be necessary to cite some sources which speak of this from a neutral point of view.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Return of Capital

I added a minor edit that i believe to be neutral and hopefully in no way inflammatory to anyone! I do believe though that it was necessary in the interest of accuracy. I added that the trust was under no obligation to return funds to leaving members as that is the very clearly stated conditions of the trust as set out in it's documents. It is clearly nothing other than a 'fact' i have stated so i doubt any party should have a problem with it's inclusion.

With it's prior version the trust sounded like a building society into which covenant members could posit their money and collect again at will on the way out again with the church looking after it for them in the interim.

That doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the trust conditions legally or of the commitment individuals make - i don't know of any members who see that money as their own and being 'looked after' for them and many might see it as a downplay of the sacrifice they made and the real renouncement of personal property they have undertaken. It would ignore the position of those who argue that it is very difficult to leave such a commitment. Whatever side you're coming from it denies the reality that it is a total commitment of those funds with the documents making it absolutely clear there is no legal right to refund.

If this is to be re-edited please discuss

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 10:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your edit here first, and arrive at an agreed form of words. The article as it stands was agreed as balanced NPOV, and we need to keep that balance. In addition, you need to be specific about your sources. John Campbell (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is the trust conditions document which members agree to upon signing over their capital. It could be linked here however that might be considered an invasion of privacy.

If you have any issue with the accuracy of the edit or the reasoning, given above, for it's being made please do so otherwise the matter seems straightforward enough.

Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 10:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You would need to provide a suitable Reliable Source that you can quote for this. The sentence you want to change was based on such sources (see the references) and reflects the practice of the community. Legally, return of capital has to be at the discretion of the Trustees, but the Trustees' policy and practice is that the capital of members who chose to leave is always returned on request. I think the sentence as it stands is a good brief summary. John Campbell (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My source is clearly the same as your own then and we need not duplicate - though i cannot see a reference beside your comments on the trust conditions i will take your word on it that you have reliably sourced these.

Hopefully, in light of the edit now being a matter of only 6 words that in no way effects the 'balance' of the article and agrees entirely with your own admission of practice, you can have no need to censor it's inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John, if the statement in the text refers to a legal document, as clearly it does, then Freetospeak does seem to have a point. Perhaps we need to arrive at a compromise. My own experience confirms Freetospeak's opinion that members of the community do not regard the money given to the trust as still being theirs, kept in trust. They think of themselves as committed for life and of their possessions /capital as permanently renounced. Perhaps this fact could be reflected in the text, together with assurance that despite the legalities, the trust policy is to return all capital donations.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Freetospeak, hi. Please could I ask you to sign your contributions by putting four tildes (these~) at the end.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you and John are clearly talking about the same document. As you are being invited to cite specifics, I am sure that he does not feel you will be breaching any privacy considerations. Could you quote the specific sentences, please? Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is essential that edits are fully discussed here first. Bristol & I managed that, so please follow the Wikipedia rules on a controversial subject (see the top of this page). The first step is to find an acceptable source, then quote it and propose your change. Otherwise edits just bat back and forth. John Campbell (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John,

The key word in the wiki guidelines in the box above that you referred me to is 'substantial'. This is not a substantial edit - it is six words clarifying something that you have chosen to write about and have stated yourself to be true. Wiki does not expect every single word used to be referenced - hence it says 'edits of this nature', following the above bullet point on any 'substantial' editing. You cannot expect to prevent an article on wiki to never be edited based on a semantic loophole that doesn't hold. Surely you agree my edit is not biased or leading or unbalancing in any way. You have stated it is fact. Perhaps you could explain what your issue with it being included is?

Please explain what source you have on your bibliography that supports your original statement that members may claim back their original capital upon leaving. As it stands that directly contradicts the legal reality and the ideological reality that members live by and i am keen to know what source of evidence you have for this. My edit is gentle and non-disparaging. I recommend accepting it graciously rather than having to produce legal documents evidencing your own comments on the trust - particularly as they don't exist as we both know they are drawn up to make it explicitly clear that there is no guarantee of returned funds.

My intent is far from malicious, the edit utterly harmless and you have never explained why you have an issue with this fact being represented.

Regards

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies but the tilde key on my computer does not work - FTS, 1846 20/3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll find a clickable link on the edit page, with four tildes following the words "Sign your user name" not far below the edit box. Click on that and your contributions will be signed. John Campbell (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, Freetospeak, and I don't disagree with you in principle, but the stability that we achieved - and which has been maintained without change for two months, has only been possible because of a willingness to compromise. If you insist on your change and John (or someone else) reacts and changes it back, we will return to the bad old days of wiki ping-pong where truth is lost in the scramble for the dominance of one vested interest over another. We have to accept that none of us will ever be perfectly happy with the article....but that it as closely represents the truth as is possible when those involved in it have diametrically opposed views on the subject. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

However, you have as much right to edit as any of us, so please could you do what we have all had to do so far and actually quote the document that you are referring to so that, if necessary, we can hash something out which everyone can live with. Any change needs to be justified with a neutral source.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly as Bristol, please quote a Reliable Source WP:RS here and allow us to thrash out a form of words that expresses a Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. Those principles are non-negotiable, as Bristol will confirm. In response to your comment above, I do not find your edit neutral, as it seems designed to hide the fact that capital is always returned on request. The phrasing you object to is not my own, by the way, but crafted by a neutral editor. To help, here are two neutral academic sources together with the Jesus Fellowship's own take on the matter (with the key sentences emboldened).

The section on Community Membership on About the New Creation Christian Community webpage says: "Before embarking on full community membership there is a probationary period of two years (which must extend at least up to the age of 21). During this time, income is pooled with other members of the community house, and capital assets (if any) are loaned to the Trust. In many cases new members have no assets, or even have debts which the Trust pays off.

"At the end of probationary membership, the member may either withdraw from community living, or confirm their status as full 'Contributing Members' of the Trust. Any assets they have are contributed to the Trust fund and entered in a legal register against their name.

"If they should later wish to withdraw from community membership, they would be eligible for a refund of this capital contribution. Many of those who do decide to withdraw continue to take a full part in church activities; others may join another church. Almost all remain in warm contact with friends in the Jesus Fellowship. " John Campbell (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

David V. Barrett, The New Believers, Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions (London: Continuum 2001): "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 the Community, their capital is paid back, sometimes with interest. The Community keeps its running expenses and its capital completely separate, and has its accounts audited by the international firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers."

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) Pp.21-41: "During the probationary time the prospective member's income and any capital assets placed in the Community Trust Fund which may also pay off debts previously incurred by new members. At the end of the probationary period, any assets an individual may have are contributed to the Trust Fund and entered into a legal register against their name and are refunded should a member wish to leave the Jesus Fellowship."

I agree that the sentence as it stands is not the full story. It doesn't include any reference to payment of debts, nor of financial help on leaving to those with no assets in the register. Can you suggest a form of words here that covers the points that these sources bring home? John Campbell (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated the source - Legal contract signed upon donating capital as drawn up on behalf of the Trustees. In addition we can source this page and your own written statement above that it is at the 'discretion of the trustees'. Though i would again refer you to the fact this is a 'minor' edit. The points you make above would qualify as 'substantial' and would indeed require you to produce the legal contracts and deeds of the lease to substantiate what you are claiming where it is indeed made very clear that the trust is under no obligation to return capital or provide funds of any kind to leaving members except at their own discretion.

With all due respect this is pedantry over 6 words you have used yourself and have no dispute with factually. freetospeak 21/3 09:17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 09:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is vandalism as you persist in ignoring the discussion on this talk page and you will find undoubtedly find yourself blocked if you continue in this manner. I have explained the situation and provided two neutral Reliable Sources, and you are welcome to suggest a form of words which takes on board what they have to say. In the meantime I propose the following amendment, which is supported by a Reliable Source which I have quoted: "They then surrender their possessions for collective use, which are always returned on request should they subsequently decide to leave." John Campbell (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Freetospeak. You and John each have good points. John agrees that the statement as it stands does not cover everything and I think if you insist on your change, it would only be right to accept John's too, which would mean the inclusion of considerably more than 6 words. I disagree that the number of words has anything really to do with how substantial an edit is, though. In 6 words you could say "The Jesus Army is a sect"; just six words can have a very substantial impact....and be objectionable to members of the JA. John's objection to the inclusion is understandable, as it implies that the JA may not pay people back, when he insists that their policy, regardless of trust law, is always to do so. That is why Rumiton's (I think) choice of words seemed appropriate.

I agree with you that the article, as it stands, implies that people feel that their money is kept in trust, when the truth is that they never expect or intend to have it back, and I agree that the probationary periods are largely for appearances' sake, but they still exist; proving what people feel or think would be nigh on impossible using NPOV sources. Unless you want the inclusion of the JA's repayment of people's debts etc cluttering up rthe article, I think I'd be inclined to keep things as they are.

Please can I urge you not to go ahead and make the edit without first hashing out the wording with all here. I appreciate that it is infuriating...and goodness knows, it was a heck of a learning curve for me, but it is a process which works. John is not being threatening, by the way. He is not the one who would do you for vandalism; reverting edits repeatedly gets you thrown off and that can't be good for free speech. As always, freedom (to speak) comes with responsibilities, often onerous ones. It is important for you to still be able to contribute, but for that you have to play by wiki rulesBristol Sycamore (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I amended the article along the lines I suggested, but I am more than willing to return it to Rumiton's phrasing, possibly with the additional reference to source material which I suggest. John Campbell (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you? I can't seem to see how you changed it...will look more carefully. But shouldn't you have agreed the change before doing it? Otherwise it makes a nonsense of reverting Freetospeak's edits. Please could you put it back for now...pending discussionBristol Sycamore (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes he has changed it - it now states funds are 'always returned' if someone leaves. Changed without discussion and without detailing change here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetospeak (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I did actually detail the change (see above).John Campbell (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid this was inevitable, Freetospeak. It is why I felt it best to leave the article as it was, albeit less than ideal in terms of tone and content. John, as a professional PR man, has an enormous archive of useful sources which he can draw upon, which means that he is more easily able to exploit wiki rules than you and I. Proving the counter arguments to ones which JA people will be happy with is jolly hard. So you have to try and see the bigger picture and settle for a compromise. The thing is that using NPOV sources he has been able to strengthen the article in the JA's favour. Your edit did not say anything which could not be inferred when reading between other lines anyway. You have to try to accept that John has made considerable concessions. Insisting on pedantic changes designed to show the JA in a poor light may make them less willing to settle for compromises. Sometimes it is like the UN round here (with all due respect to you, John).Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry John, you know how reluctant I am to revert edits (it feels crass), but I have reverted your edit to Rumiton's original wording until this can be properly discussed and a wording agreed between the three of us. I think that is for the best, particularly as I imagine you will be busy for the next few days and therefore unavailable to do the revert yourself, as I know you would have been willing to do. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I am happy to revert to Rumiton's wording for the time being. But any change would have to say much what I said in it, and be properly referenced. I am not "exploiting wiki rules", by the way - that kind of comment is out of order! John Campbell (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if you took offense. It wasn't intended, John. Perhaps you feel a little over-sensive after being reverted - a less than pleasant, but necessary experience. I just meant that you are well-versed in wiki rules and make best use of them in defense of the JA position....and that, by extension, Freetospeak should try to get abreast of wiki rules of evidence if there is a point he wants to make...as I have had to do.

As I said above, I knew you would be happy to revert to Rumiton's wording and only did it on your behalf because I know that you can be very busy at the weekend - with church matters etc. I didn't expect to see you again for a day or two. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

:-) That's OK John Campbell (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to read WP:PSTS to understand what sources are usable, and which are not. Primary documents need to be interpreted by reputable sources before they become acceptable in Wikipedia (which is why I proposed the sources I did for my proposed edit above). John Campbell (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised by the lack of detail in this Wiki entry. It reads almost like a PR pamphlet. There's no discussion of any real controversy. No discussion of former members claims of it being a cult. It's all nicely sanitized. So I checked out this talk page to see what was going on. And now I see why. John's unwillingness to bend on even something as simple as pointing out that JA is under no actual obligation to return possessions makes it rather obvious. This is, unfortunately, nothing but a fluff piece. It might as well be nothing but a redirect to http://www.jesus.org.uk/. And, no personal offense to you Bristol. You appear to be working to make this a reasonably accurate entry. I admire your tenacity on this. Perhaps it will get there eventually. But until John is more willing to allow this to be an unbiased entry rather than something that requires approval by JA, I don't see that happening. Gramby (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am copying this entry to the bottom to create a new section, which will be more visibleBristol Sycamore (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot - who gets what it's about?

Just noticed that the Betacommand bot just did an edit. Does anyone understand what it has done, and why?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This article has been assessed as of low importance and start quality in the Christianity Project. The Command Bot automatically added that assessment to the start of this discussion page. It's called beta because it needs to get better :-) John Campbell (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief: beta = better! Thanks John. How can a bot make what appears to me to be such a subjective assessment, I wonder? But then I am not up on what the Christianity Project is all about.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the bot just transfers the editors' judgments on the Christianity Page to the subject pages. These various projects seem incredibly ambitious, involving an assessment of all the major threads of Wikipedia. John Campbell (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking

Hi John. I just noticed that bit of vandalism, but see it has been reverted; great stuff. Incidentally, I noticed the edit you did on the 7th January, which I hadn't seen before - I suppose because I wasn't expecting there to be any further changes without prior agreement here. I don't object to the edit you made; you are right that it is something we did discuss some time back, but can we just agree that just as everyone else is required to come here and seek agreement before making edits, we will do the same. If it is something we think we agreed to in the past and just haven't had time to do since, could we give others a reminder, as I think I felt the article was stable when Rumiton bowed out?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your comments -- but I pointed out the remaining undecided areas again on 17 December, made a proposal and tried to get a response on 22 December, before making the changes and flagging it on 7 January. Feel free to comment on them!! John Campbell (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a major bone of contention, John, particularly as I am not botherd about the content of the edit, but all this came at a time when I was going on holiday and Rumiton also seems to have been otherwise engaged. For future reference, I think we ought to agree that silence does not indicate consent. And if all else fails, you can always email to nudge me if a suggestion does not elicit a response. We can hardly insist that others consult on edits if we go ahead without agreement ourselves. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not trying to pull a fast one, anyway. :-) John Campbell (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:-) That's ok, John.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There's other tweaking that really needs to be done to this article. The first one I notice is in the first section: "...was inspired by a charismatic experience...". With only the cited reference and it's quote to go from, it would seem that it should read "... was reportedly inspired by a charismatic experience...". Mostly because a charismatic experience tends to be a rather personal thing that can't actually be verified. I'm not sure that's the exact wording. It's certainly better than variants of "purported" which casts doubt on the issue. I think "claimed to have had' also has the same problem. Is there something better than "reportedly" that would still point out that it's hearsay and/or non-verifiable but without casting doubt on it or other negative connotations? If there is more verifiability to this, then perhaps it could be included as part of the cited reference. Gramby (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

When we looked at this before, the expansion of the cited reference (using similar references such as Chryssides: "it was so intoxicating, so exhilarating, and so intense that I felt I was not going to live any more! I became filled with the intensity of God. This went on for hours and hours and I moved into speaking in tongues and praising the Lord. It was a tremendous experience of life and fullness from which I didn't come down for a long time - and this was the changing point in my life.") quoted Noel Stanton's account of his "charismatic experience", which was felt to be too subjective. "Charismatic experience" was considered a suitably neutral form of words, based on the words directly used by a reliable source. I toyed with the idea of something like "a charismatic experience described by Stanton as 'devastating, powerful, releasing and full of worship. It was, and has continued to be, a Baptism of love, faith, vision and courage....' " which gets round some of the difficulty, but also reads considerably less neutrally John Campbell (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Becoming a clean and new person , etc

John has suggested that Gramby and I would not accept "Becoming a clean and new person"[4] as a source because it would not suit our agendas, but I think the main reason it is unacceptable as a source is that it is not a reported article but one written by a JA member with by-line. Clearly it is entirely biased.

I can understand you saying I have an agenda, John, but you can hardly accuse Gramby of being biased. He hadn't heard of the JA until a few days ago.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If this article were accepted then so should ones like this - ttp://www.religionnewsblog.com/17638/jesus-army from the Birmingham Sunday Mercury.Heck52 (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree Heck, but I don't think John was serious. His article was clearly partisan, where at least yours was written by someone without a vested interest. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just add that Heck's article did not appear in "top-line" media (like the New York Times, The Times, the BBC), the journalist came undercover and did not reveal herself, and the final quote is totally spurious as she never talked to me. John Campbell (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I am right in saying that Jossi clarified the point, saying that any published source where they were under a professional obligation to check their facts and were legally liable for what they said (had something to lose by publishing lies) was a verifiable source. When you say she was undercover and did not reveal herself to you, what do you mean exactly? Whenever a journalist is a woman, Mhairi always seems to be your spokesperson...presenting the solid, mature, serene image of a woman who has "some" leadership roles in community. It seems odd that it was her of all people who talked to the reporter. The rather dramatic word "undercover" suggests that there is a cover or even a cover-up to get under but are your meetings not open to anyone anyway?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You are well aware that our meetings are open to all. The Wikipedia issue with sources is their "reliability" and I don't think this one can qualify as reliable. What was undercover is that this journalist did not reveal herself as a reporter at any stage. What was totally unprofessional is that she "quoted" me without having talked to me at all. There is another issue in that the web link is in breach of copyright and is not acceptable under Wiki rules. John Campbell (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I know your meetings are open to all. I wanted you to confirm it here because I think that if the reporter wanted to report her impressions, as her recount shows she did, it is only reasonable that she should not have introduced herself first. But that does not make her "undercover". She would only have been undercover if she had come to live amongst you without telling you she was a reporter. But even if that had been the case, going undercover is NOT considered unprofessional. There has been quite a lot in the media recently about the necessity of journalists being able to go undercover in order to get information their stories, unsanitised. Take Zimbabwe, for instance. Western media are banned from Zimbabwe. Do we call it unprofessional if the BBC are able to get a report out or are able to contact a voice-disguised reporter on the ground? Should we listen to Mugabe if he protests that the BBC report is "unreliable" because the reporter didn't introduce himself to the dictator or his spokesman in person? Also, it is quite clear to anyone reading the article carefully, that the Mercury reporter is not saying that the quote was to her in person. I am sure we could find countless sources of the same quote.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What I stated above, was that it was unprofessionalism to quote me falsely. Those are not my words at all. And it is extremely offensive to compare me to Mugabe. John Campbell (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, John. I am not comparing you to Mugabe. You are incredibly touchy for a PR man. I am making a point, which will not be lost on others. You were not quoted falsely. She didn't say you had said that to her (she referred to direct conversations elsewhere). You are getting defensive over nothing at all - did the quote (taken from another source, presumably) misrepresent your position?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my comment above. John Campbell (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look for offense everywhere, you will find it. But I'd have thought it was quite a handicap for someone fronting a controversial sect. I was making a point in very clear terms. It was about media professionalism, not about the JA (or you personally).Bristol Sycamore (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that acknowledgement and clarification. John Campbell (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the comparison with mugabe inappropriate, it could even be considered offensive. I've read the report in question and notice the reporter is also saying that things like the internet is 'banned',that is incorrect. If that's incorrect I'd have to ask myself what else is incorrect in that report.Manicpixie (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think this entire thread is an illustration of the way that you will tend to obscure the contentions of an article (or the allegations of a critic) by seeking to discredit him/her, John. Either the critic is unprofessional, under-handed, unreliable, the source in breach of copyright or the article against wiki rules....or rguments about it offensive to you personally....and all the time, we are not looking at the claims made about the JA

Manic makes a good point about factual inaccuracies in the article. That is a far more creditable way to consider the article. That said, having talked to the young man who came to live with me after leaving the JA, it does have to be made clear that while the JA has the internet, its use by members is not without scrutiny, not available to all equally and what members may look at is limited. My observations of visiting DG's household seem to bear that out.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, we are here to discuss improvements in the article, which includes considering whether the Sources are Reliable while avoiding personal attacks and original research. John Campbell (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

IS that what you are doing, John, because all I can see is you reaching for any means possible to disallow an article which might show you in a bad light, while proffering one written entirely by a JA member as if it was reliable and NPOV.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The contention is that the wiki article has been sanitised

I was surprised by the lack of detail in this Wiki entry. It reads almost like a PR pamphlet. There's no discussion of any real controversy. No discussion of former members claims of it being a cult. It's all nicely sanitized. So I checked out this talk page to see what was going on. And now I see why. John's unwillingness to bend on even something as simple as pointing out that JA is under no actual obligation to return possessions makes it rather obvious. This is, unfortunately, nothing but a fluff piece. It might as well be nothing but a redirect to http://www.jesus.org.uk/. And, no personal offense to you Bristol. You appear to be working to make this a reasonably accurate entry. I admire your tenacity on this. Perhaps it will get there eventually. But until John is more willing to allow this to be an unbiased entry rather than something that requires approval by JA, I don't see that happening. Gramby (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (copied from above)

The personal attack is offensive and far removed from the truth. The article was arrived at by discussion with a neutral editor and administrator. It certainly does not represent all that I would want to say, but represents what we could source from reliable sources. John Campbell (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

John, please point out the personal attack. I have read my entry again and am still unable to locate it. Gramby (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is meant to be no personal offence to Bristol, and mine is the name that is mentioned twice in the paragraph, to whom is the personal offence intended?John Campbell (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you see how well your "When did you stop beating your wife" defense could be put in here, John? You infer offense, but it is not explicit. Equally, when someone denies brainwashing, one may infer that an allegation of brainwashing has been made.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gramby, the simple fact is that wikipedia's rules of evidence make it impossible for a truer picture of the situation to be given. Unless you can find unchallegeably academic sources asserting the JA's history of controversy, it isn't allowed to stay in. You can't blame John for this really. He has his role to play and we have ours. Paraphrasing the wiki chap, wikipedia does not aim to tell the truth. It only aims to give what is verifiable. John can't be blamed for wanting certain aspects of the past to be excluded from the article. It is down to the rest of us to root out verifiable sources.

In the absence of these (or with scant evidence available to me), I have attempted to negotiate a compromise. I take the view that someone who reads the article as it stands will see that the JA has had a rocky past and will take a view on whether there is likely to be cause for concern now. I also believe that if they read the "controversy" boxes at the top, they will take the trouble to read the discussions, which are more detailed about the concerns of ex-members, et al. The archive of these discussions is meant to be permanent.

I disagree that it is "nothing but" a fluff piece; and I am not offended by this comment, by the way. The fact is that John has had to give ground on several points which he would rather have excluded, and I in turn had to accept that wiki rules made it possible for John to exclude the views of ex-members as expressed on forums, and all the sources which were newspapers rather than academic works. However, I was able to discredit Hadden, an academic source which the JA had used liberally for some years, when I was able to show that he had accepted payments for evidence he had given in court in support of cults.

That is a misleading and unfair slur on Professor Hadden, and not the cause of the reference being dropped. John Campbell (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton accepted that Hadden's NPOV was in doubt because he had given evidence in the Scientology case for which he received payment.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Check the Talk Archive. Rumiton accepted that Hadden was controversial, and we agreed to drop his references for the sake of stability. Expert witnesses are normally paid for their time in court; that is not the same as being paid for their testimony. John Campbell (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just had a look, John, and this is the bit that stands out for me:“Looking over the link mentioned, while not being exactly an extraordinary claimer, Hadden does write quite promotionally about the subject. Bearing in mind the nature of the controversy surrounding him, I don't think we would be doing the article's future stability any favours by leaving it there” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_Army/Archive_2#Jeffrey_K._Hadden . Rumiton concedes that Hadden PROMOTES the groups he writes about. It was clear to us all that Hadden was clearly not neutral. Rumiton highlighted that fact, saying that if we relied upon Hadden, other editors would inevitably challenge his inclusion.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing for the re-inclusion of the reference (even though personally I think it should stand), just defending Professor Hadden's honesty. John Campbell (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustrations with the article completely, because I share many of them. But if you want the article to reflect a view of the JA that I think you and I would recognise as being closer to the truth, evidence is needed. In the meantime, this article has been stable for some months and, in its subtle way, reflects the truth more accurately than anything that has gone before.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's policies, peer reviewed and academics sources are the preferred source. However, news organizations are also acceptable. From Wikipedia:Verifiability "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press." So, by Wikipedia's own policies, discussion of the fact that there continues to be cult controversy surrounding JA can be mentioned and cited from this BBC News article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/393334.stm Now, as to whether they are or or not a cult, opinions on both sides are represented. But it is a verifiable fact that cult controversy continues to surround JA. Gramby (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I must admit to having felt too easily stymied by others use of rules because of my laziness in reading them and also my frustration at having them interpreted to me by people with other agendas. John, what are your thoughts on this? Doesn't Gramby have a point?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Whose agenda are you referring to? Are you attacking the neutral editor and the neutral administrator or me? Remember, WP:assume good faith. In any case, the BBC article is nearly 10 years old and does not add anything that is not already covered in the article. Do read carefully Words to Avoid and note that the BBC most certainly do not apply the word "cult" to the Jesus Army, which you seem rather keen to do. John Campbell (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should also read the Words to Avoid section. "In general it should be avoided—don't say "X is a cult", say "so and so has called X a 'cult' because...". The Wikipedia position isn't that the word "cult" be avoided, it's that an organization shouldn't be called a cult. However, pointing out that they have been called a cult is acceptable. So are you saying that a BBC article titled "Sixth formers on cult alert" in which Ian Haworth is reported as giving lectures about cults and warning students against them, and in which you are quoted as saying "He's talking absolute nonsense," has absolutely nothing to do with cult controversy surrounding Jesus Army? Is that honestly your position? Gramby (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't perhaps call you a cult but it reports the fact that you are regarded by other organisations, Ian Haworth's for instance. Come on John, surely we don't have to argue the toss over the fact that you are regarded as a cult, do we? Surely that is self evidently soBristol Sycamore (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC refers to the JA as an "evangelical Christian group". So let's stick with what the sources say, not what you might want to imagine they should say. John Campbell (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

John, why in the same article are you said to have denied that you brainwash people if Iain Haworth was not accusing you of doing so?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What you are venturing into is WP:OR and WP:SYN. We are tied to what the sources say, not what you might like to read into them. As I said above, the BBC article is old and adds nothing to what has already been written here. John Campbell (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read the rules AND the article, and the simple fact is that I am not conflating media sources or doing original research. It said "He denies that the Jesus Army brainwashes its followers, a quarter of whom live in "Christian communities", and insists they have good relations with other Christian churches and that their organisation is "totally above board". " It would be reasonable for Gramby to say that the JA is controversial and to give the BBC article as evidence of that, which is what he said he wanted to use the source for. I don't see how that can be contested, except as you say, because it is an old article. If it is not still the case, he will find no similar articles from recent yearsBristol Sycamore (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The logic is irrefutable, just as it is in the famous question "When did you stop beating you wife?" However, if you want to link to more recent BBC articles, how about Church opens doors to clubbers or Becoming a clean and new person? Maybe because they don't fit your agenda? That's what frustrates me about this whole process: are we attempting to write an encyclopedia article, or trawling to find articles we can manipulate to support our position? If you check back these Talk archives, you will find that Rumiton commented that my production of academic sources was even-handed, and that is why I particularly object to the suggestion that I am attempting to 'control' this article. John Campbell (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is not a case of asking someone when he stopped beating his wife, but one of a man denying that he beats his wife. Nobody who isn't being accused of brainwashing tells the BBC his church doesn't brainwash. You were refuting an allegation. If you object so strongly to an implication of bad faith, John, why accuse me of manipulation? You appear not to be assuming good faith, which is against the rules. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it does have to be said here that you were indeed generous and even-handed with your sources during the re-write, John. I don't know if Gramby was aware of this. I think he is referring to the fact that we have until now insisted on consensus being reached here before they are put in the article. I think he feels that we are too controlling, and I do have to say that I think we have attempted to be. I really don't think that we have the right to insist that editors achieve consensus (which ostensibly means clearing things with you and me, in the absence of anyone else) BEFORE making a change. I can't find any rule which says that even controversial matters have to be discussed before editing....though I know that consensus needs to be reached eventually anywayBristol Sycamore (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if that was a rule while we had a dispute box on the article page itself. We only have a "Controversial subject" one on the talk page now and it may only be good sense to avoid an edit war. The Controversial subject box also warns of the necessity to look back at the discussion to see what has been discussed earlier. I asked Rumiton's advice earlier and he said: 'I would suggest you and Bristol chat about the issues. Whatever is done to the article has to be by consensus among committed editors, which largely means the two of you.' John Campbell (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war, John. But at the same time I don't want to be some kind of censor or policeman. In the true spirit of wikipedia, people have to be free to contribute and I think we have to try to resist the temptation to revert those edits without giving editors the chance to tighten up their contributions, verify them etc. I think that we need to get away from thinking that you and I are the only people who really care about this. I think we may have scared away some good people by appearing to be too dictatorial in the past; some I know have given up because it felt like they would never be properly listened to. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The only way to get a relatively stable article is to approach it philosophically, and not encourage POV-pushing, which is where Rumiton was so helpful before. Neither of us got the article we wanted, but it says at least some of what we would like it to say. I doubt if recruiting editors from Jesus Army Watch will help a great deal in that area, as I'm sure you appreciate from past discussions. John Campbell (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That appears a rather snyde comment, John. What I am encouraging is those people who have a genuine interest in this subject to get involved. If you hadn't censored me on your own site, I dare say I'd be on there, too, encouraging people to get involved. You have a POV and so do I, but if we manage to be neutral about it, I fail to see why anyone else can't develop that skill. Neither you nor I got here without a fair amount of to-and-froing; it is a learning curve - and nobody else is going to get a chance to learn unless they are given the freedom to try. I appreciate that in your position allowing people to speak freely does not come naturally, but it is in the real spirit of wikipedia to allow it. More to the point, it is not in your gift or in mine to stop it.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have to be quite so patronising. The question we were discussing was whether there was a Wikipedia rule that applied to controversial subjects that required discussion on the talk page before the article was changed. I think we ust have had a Template:Controversial box earlier, which required discussion before substantial edits. With the "Controversial Issues" box that we now have on the Talk page, that is no longer required, but what is required is to read previous discussions (and presumably to respect any administrator rulings there). John Campbell (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, John, but you really rattled my cage with your comment about my POV, "recruiting" etc. We ALL have a POV, but the terms you used were insulting and did not assume good faith. On Good Faith, Wiki Guidelines say:"Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives"Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think it reasonable to expect that while there is a controversial box up on this article that any changes that anyone wants to make should be discussed on the talk pages firstManicpixie (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While that was the case, Manicpixie, that was the requirement. But there is not a controverial issues box on the article now. It has to be remembered that what made it controversial was not he subject matter, but the fact that the article was in an edit war, creating lots of "issues" of verifiability. While there are no issues it would be entirely wrong to put up an issues box simply in order to control editors and deter them from adding to the article. John and I do not own the article and nobody needs our agreement or approval to add to it, even if ultimately we will ALL OF US have to work together to fine-tune it.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe you can explain why "This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary." is at the top of the page if it's no longer a controbersial issue?, also why are you shouting with caps when I'm not?Manicpixie (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The capitals are not shouting but are there for emphasis; I might as easily have used italics, but as you can see, italics are less easily seen. The point I was making was that consensus must be reached by everyone involved, not just by John Campbell and myself. If you check you will see that Wiki has a long list of articles which it considers controversial. JA is not on it. The box you are referring to is at the top of the discussion page, not the article itself. Its wording is a template form and not unique to this situation - vague wording like, "may be disputed". It was put up before the article achieved stability.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Wiki List of Controversial Issues[[5]]"A controversial issue is one where its related articles are constantly being re-edited in a circular manner, or is otherwise the focus of edit warring." When the box was put up this was the case. It no longer is, which is why Rumiton removed it from the article, freeing editors to contribute to the article without having to check with other editors first.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've now found out that that particular box is no longer available on Wikipedia, which is why it vanished! John Campbell (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Here is a very useful guide to consensus in wikipedia[[6]]. In it you can see that "Consensus emerges during the editing process" -"Generally someone edits a page, and then subsequent viewers of the page have three options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. Included in each of the courses is the option to discuss the action before or after the action. Typically, each article goes through many iterations of the consensus process to achieve a neutral and readable product." But what it also says is that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable."Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, I see that you and Will Beback have been editing the article. Does this mean that you now accept that edits can be made without concensus being arrived at first here?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly would be counterproductive for substantial or controversial edits to be made without discussion, but as I indicated above, I agree that the tag that required all edits to be discussed has been removed. John Campbell (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that concession, John. Can we agree not to revert things we don't like, automatically, but to allow a cooling-off period, time to think and time to invite discussion?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is something very disappointing about the fact you've seen fit to publish the fact the tag has been removed on a know anti-JA site as well as your blog. It seems almost like you're encouraging unsuitable edits.Manicpixie (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag was removed months ago. What I am advertising is the concession John has made that everyone is entitled to be a wikipedian and edit the article. Your wording is unfortunate because it implies a prejudice that people will make unsuitable edits. There is a rule here which applies to all of us, which is to assume good faith.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It is permissible to comment on the content and effect of posts on & off Wikipedia. That doesn't contravene WP:AGF. I sure it would be helpful if you could point out to posters that the aim of all editors should be to part of producing a neutral article, and not to push any particular point of view. And, by the way, I'm not aware of "conceding" anything. Sounds like a WP:weasel word to me. John Campbell (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Next we'll be arguing about the number of fairies or angels on a pin head. It seemed like a concession to me - I thought it was a positive thing, but if it is important for you not to appear like you are giving me any ground, that is fine too. Does it matter what we call it? Either way, having argued that people must reach consensus before editing, you now acknowledge that this is not the case, for which I was grateful. What are your feelings on allowing edits you disagree with to stand for a short while, as is customary, to allow the editor to justify the edit - so as to avoid an edit war or the perception that either of us are acting as censorsBristol Sycamore (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)?

Apologies for wording my comment badly. However I do think that the posting I'm commenting on could encourage bad edits.Manicpixie (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Manicpixie. That IS a danger, but don't you think that if I can be tamed, anyone else can? Everyone has to learn how this thing works the hard way. The article as it stands does not reflect the JA as many people have experienced it and the article has been described, even by someone who does not know the JA at all, as an obviously sanitised fluff piece. The JA has the advantage of a PR man with an archive of sources and has hundreds of people willing to speak for it (and dig out useful stuff). To balance that up, all you have is me, and I am frankly tired and bored. There are loads of more learned and experienced people out there who could add salt and light to all this. And at the risk of them saying things that may be controversial, I think they need to be encouuraged to get up in their lofts and find sources.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this is covered by a Wiki Rule WP:MEAT: "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." John Campbell (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for bringing that rule to our attention John.Manicpixie (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not inviting people to join a debate but inviting BACK people who were deterred from contributing during the rewrite because every effort to contribute (like Mike Aldrich's and John Everett's were spurned, despite the considerable effort they put in). I don't want people to debate anything. I want people to contribute to the article. Interestingly, the only people who have contributed since you accepted that they could, John, have been people on "your side". I am happy to see there here, even if I do wonder what brought them here.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I must allow others to reflect on the validity of your distinction and whether WP:MEAT applies, but for the record, here are links to the pages where you invited contributions, and suggested the lines on which the contributions might be made[7] [8] [9]. The procedure we went through was the legitimate Wikpedia process for dealing with controversial subjects, with the help of a neutral editor and/or administrator as in WP:DR. No-one was frozen out or rejected, but the key Wikipedia rules were applied fairly and at times firmly. At the time we both agreed that it was a constructive, if painful, process and that it produced an reasonable attempt at a balanced article, as seen by an outsider. All the discussions are on record and archived for other editors to review. John Campbell (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased you have included the links, John. I had thought to do so myself, but given your jumpiness about Jesus Army Watch and my blog (Surviving the Jesus Army) appearing on here, I thought better of it. People will see that I have cautioned people not to use the word cult, to find verifiable sources and to speak for themselves. That is not MEAT or sock-puppetry, which implies me putting words in other people's mouths. Lots of people are concerned about the JA and are perfectly capable of formulating their own arguments. They are a disparate bunch over whom I have very little (if any) influence. It really isn't at all like life in the JA where you can be pretty confident of at least apparent unanimity.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We did indeed arrive at the compromise article together (and as you say, the process is on the record), but what we arrived at was a concensus of only three people (and only two of us who are actually privy to what actually goes on in the JA). Others were frankly deterred by the process, but had clearly tried to contribute. The fact is that the mediated re-write is not how the editing process normally works, but is what happens when there has been an editing war. The normal course of events frees everyone to make sensible edits and not engage in convoluted and drawn-out arguments. It strikes me that the principle I read in the guidelines, that even children can contribute wouldn't work on the JA article, where even well-educated adults despair of being heard.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything further to add to this section of the discussion. OK? John Campbell (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I am probably done, but others may want a say.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Current Practices - Covenant

As an anonymous editor has inserted the word "lifetime" into the phrase "pledge of loyalty to the Fellowship" I have supplied the other missing phrase "intention of" as in the Source. I am sure this is non-controversial. John Campbell (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair to me. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The word in the source is "lifelong", which I guess is what we should use. John Campbell (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fine with meBristol Sycamore (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Database locked

what does this mean? I don't think I have seen it before.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Technical problem. Usually goes away if you try again. John Campbell (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JohnBristol Sycamore (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and Uni Chaplaincies

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/chaplaincy/movements/index.html

I am trying to craft an edit which makes the point that university chaplaincies warn students to be cautious of the JA as a "New Religious Movement" using a strong recruiting style. I think this belongs in the section concerning the JA's practices or belongs with statements about how the JA is to be compared to other mainstream house churches. What do other editors think?

The Cardiff Chaplaincy site, which is an academic one and surely above reproach, refers to such NRMs as "controversial" and includes Moonies, JWs, Scientology, etc- . I think this relates to the issue of whether the JA/JFC is regarded in the same terms as other house churches, as suggested in the article.

The site refers readers to INFORM, which I think most editors would feel was a very reputable site set up by Eileen Barker, who is not a critic of the JA, and to Hadden's site, which I know John will be happy about.

I believe that numerous university chaplaincies list the JA as a controversial NRM which is cause for concern where vulnerable students are concerned, but I won't say it unless I have reliable references.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not an academic source which is subject to peer review, merely a notice to students. The Jesus Army has never been active in Cardiff, so the reliability of this source must be questioned. The rest of the posting looks very much like WP:OR or WP:SYN and hardly seems to be pursuing WP:NPOV. John Campbell (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Jesus army is now being invited into schools and colleges/Prison Unity College I bellieve is one that rang the Jesus Army and asked them to go in (this is a good thing)due to the fact that when many people meet them the truth is realised that they are doing a lot of good in Our country whever they may be.And that they are not a cult or dodgy group and many of the rumours about them are usually out sync with reality. (Not everyone is allowed to join community) Obviously some can not be helped by them. and I bellieve that the Jesus army nee to go to Bridgend and help save people there as they are one of only a few Churches that actually can help because the Community is there to offer support daily 24/7.Darthsuma (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Jesus Army have some good guidelines about guesting in their houses, Joining in a variety of memberships, and only after a year of trying out community would any ongoing commitment to it be made. I would live in their Community if I could but for now often visiting is as good as can be.Darthsuma 12:56 30th June 2008

The Jesus army is also now available on Facebook :) but always better in person :) Darthsuma (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly not a neutral comment and I am surprised that John has not removed it as "original research".Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the only grounds for removing other editors' contributions to talk pages lie within Biography of Living Persons, which you are encouraged to deal with swiftly. The contribution above couldn't make it to the article page, and in fact I removed it from there yesterday. John Campbell (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood that rule, if it was the basis on which you removed something I said about myself a day or so ago in this section. The rule is designed to protect living people from libel. It is not designed to give people grounds for censoring AUTO-biographical material, epecially on a talk page. In an article it could be said to be "original research" and could be removed for that, but not from here, John.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

it was your reference to a living person which ran foul of the rule. See my edit summary. I'm taking a short wiki break now. John campbell 193.35.132.148 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I am the living person, apart from a reference to Noel. But as the article is about him, in part, I hardly think you can remove reference to him in the discussion, can you? Enjoy your AgapeBristol Sycamore (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry John, I must have overlooked that editing Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

so I pop along and post some stuff and you two fight over wether I can or not, then accuse each other of who out of either of you I know.or maybe even the church itself. How very odd you are adults aren't you? coz i'm not convinced!!!! Darthsuma (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I moved this as it was in the wrong sectionBristol Sycamore (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Try to avoid personal attacks, Darthsuma. WP:NPA Bristol Sycamore (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies equally to all parts of Wikipedia. Something that's unacceptable for BLP reasons in an article is also unacceptable on a talk page. Talk pages exist only to discuss improvements to the article. They should not be used to discuss or debate the subject of the article, nor should they host discussions of the editors or their actions on- or off-site. Postings which are seriously off-topic may be removed, though some judgment should be used to avoid inflaming matters. The relevant guideline is WP:TPG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=193237 An Anglican chaplain to Manchester HE community refers to JA "prosyletising" as "aggressive" and groups them in with others ("cults" and NRMs) which prey on vulnerable students, especially young women and foreigners.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The article only refers to the Jesus Army as "aggressively proselytising". The rest of your comments are therefore synthesis, taking material from elsewhere in the article and applying it directly in a way that the author did not. An equally-valid obstacle is that the article is an opinion piece, as flagged by the heading "I think...", and falls short in various ways of being a reliable source. In terms of other Chaplaincies, on a quick search of the internet, I found only that the Jesus Army is listed in the Warwick University Chaplaincy's "Guide to Places of Worship" under "Christian Independent and Other". See [[10]]. John Campbell (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Current Practices - Jesus Centres

As the third Jesus Centre has now opened in London, the final sentence in the section needs amending to "Other Jesus Centres opened in Northampton (2004) and Central London (2008), with others to follow." OK? John Campbell (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the 2008 opening is fine with me, though I wonder if "others to follow" can be regarded as NPOV?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that NPOV is the corect tag, but I agree it might be suspect. The question is whether the future is Reliably Sourced and Verifiable; probably not. How about "others planned"? John Campbell (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be fine. Does everyone else agree?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To follow or planned, both mean the same and seem ok to meManicpixie (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Speculating on the future would not be appropriate as per WP:SOAP - the whole Jesus Centres' paragraph also appears to be an advert for services provided at the centres, rather un-encyclopedic. At most it should say that there are 3 centres, and where they are located. --Mike Aldrich (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, Mike Aldrich does have a point. It does just read like an advert for the services they provide. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This sentence was based on quotes from reliable sources, as referenced. Perhaps the quotes should also be given directly in the references section to avoid argument. ~~I am almost certain that it is given in full in the archives of these talk pages, and I will look it out tomorrow.~~ I think that more than Mike proposes is needed, and global citizens would expect that the article should explain here what the Jesus Centres are, where they are, and what they do. John Campbell (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the quotes (or links to them) that I provided previously: [11] and [12] John Campbell (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it reasonable to include in the artical where the jesus centers are and what they doManicpixie (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Manicpixie, please could you just add one colon, so as to avoid exaggerated indents which make threads very narrow and long.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

changed practices

"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"

What practices were changed and why? The statement is rather vague. Also, which reference backs up the claim that these unspecified practices were changed?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for that to be any more detailed that it is for an encyclopaedia entry.Manicpixie (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The JA was expelled from the EA for unspecified reasons. They changed their practices and were readmitted. It would be unencyclopedic NOT to include more detail of the practices, especially if they were controversial enough to keep them out of membership from the body representing mainstream evangelicalism in the UK.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We have consensed this section some time ago, and you originally described it as "very fair". There is a sentence detailing 'objectionable' practices earlier, if that is what you are lookig for.

The relevant quote that was used (already given in the archives of this page) is from the Christian Herald - 29 July 2000: JOINING THE EA 'FAMILY' ...Another high-profile movement who joined the EA family last autumn is the Jesus Fellowship 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 [General Secretary of the EA] 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."

I also provided a quote from idea (the Evangelical Alliance magazine) but this got lost in the editing process, though it is in the talk archives. I think that must have been a typo on the original talk page which has got carried through to the article, as both references currently point to exactly the same source. I will fix the article references if that is OK.

idea, 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." John Campbell (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If consensus was reached between the neutral editor and both of you, I don't see that the issue needs to be discussed again as it doesn't seem that anyone's added anything new that needs to be considered in that part of the article. Had there been new information to consider then it'd be different.Manicpixie (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I can quite understand why you are reluctant for a lot of the changes I am suggesting, manicpixie, but Wiki says that consensus is not immutable. There were a lot of changes in a short space of time and little time to stop and reflect. I agreed whenever possible because I do think we need to be as positive as we can (and not precious about our own edits), and sometimes concessions and compromises are needed to oil the process. However, others have since expressed dissatisfaction with some parts and just as John has felt it necessary to add to and edit parts, I am suggesting that some parts, like this one, need tweaking and tightening up. John, I can see what you are saying about your greater openness to other churches providing a basis for re-entry into EA membership, but I am not sure that is satisfactorily expressed in the article...and I am not sure that really covers the issue of "many" changed practices. Could you include in the article some explanation of the practices which were changed and say why they were felt to be inappropriate then or why the changes were necessary?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What I have done is repair the references. These are the only sources that I am aware of that address the matter, and as you can see from them, they major on relationships with other evangelicals. John Campbell (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

so are you saying peter that you gave consensus that you where happy with the article but now you find it immutable and no longer want to stand by your word?Manicpixie (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I am not quite sure that is English, but I shall try to answer it anyway. Firstly, your reference to my "word" is hostile and calls my integrity into question, which John can tell you is against wikipedia rules. I am not sure you quite understand the word immutable and consensus cannot be "given". What I am saying is that at the time I chose to accept a version of the article, which now I think needs clairification. I asked Rumiton at the time whether the article arrived at together would be effectively "locked" and he explained that it would continue to be refined. Both John and I are now refining the article. I would ask you to assume my good faith WP:AGF, as you assume John's. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad wording on my part sorry.Put more simply,was asking why you changed your mind?There was no hostile intent in that and sorry that you saw it as such.Manicpixie (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I felt that it fitted a pattern of hostility, Manicpixie. Thanks for your apology. Please could we draw a line under it? I accept that we see things differently and I understand your passionate defense of the JA, having been a passionate member at one time, and in fact having even recently defended the JA locally. I just want to get an article which more faithfully reflects the facts.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia principle, don't bite the newbies. Add that to Assume good faith, and I think Manicpixie and other newbies deserve a reasonably gentle approach! John Campbell (talk)

I wish that had been my experience when I was new here, John. I think, to be fair, that in identifying with Manicpixie, I have tried to be gracious in response to quite a lot of "passion".Bristol Sycamore (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view, an article which more faithfully represented the facts would say considerably more about the Jesus Army's activities and actions today and show less obsession with the past. There is considerably more that could (and should) be added but I accepted a drastically restricted version for the sake of consensus. John Campbell (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose some might feel that an article of the sort you would have liked would be less encyclopedic and more like self-promotion. What I am attempting to do at present is bring things up to date by understanding the transition from the past to the present form. You say that the change of practices refers to opening up to other churches, but I wonder if it also includes dropping of practices which other churches found objectionable, like rodding. There has also been a liberalising of women's roles and clothing, I believe? I understand the wish to leave the past's more extreme policies behind but without a clear understanding of what was actually dropped, there is a danger of people still identifying the present church with the previous incarnation.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As WP:OR, another key step was probably the growth of other, less-committed, forms of membership, which had a wider effect on the community. We might find that referenced somewhere in the sources I have already found. John Campbell (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense. As, until then, the drive had always been to resist the corrosive effects of "the world" in compromising community values (like women's submission, modest dress, corporal punishment, no TV etc), it would make informative reading to understand why the community allowed the less committed forms of membership to affect the more committed style. There is a reference already (haven't checked) to the broadening of membership being responsible for the church's longevity. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

These are the quotes I have to hand:

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

[p.40] "The decision in the late 1980s to become more open and link with other New Churches has been of particular importance. So has the decision, over the last decade, to broaden the membership so that now community residences [residents] form only one-third of the church [true in 1998, now one-quarter]."

Newell, p.133: "One key to persistence has been adaptability, particularly the decision in the late 1980s to become more open and to relate to other new churches, representing a desire to move beyond sectarianism to become a stream within new church Charismaticism."

Newell P.136: "Adaptation has been the pattern from 1990 to 1996, and has worked in terms of accelerated growth of adherents and more recognition by other churches. The most significant development in these years has been the broadening of the membership so that now community residents form less than one third of the church."

John Campbell (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If that bit is all about how the membership broadened and was open to other Christians, I don't get the use of the phrase, "the JA examined and changed many of its practices". Your explanation does not speak of any practices, let alone many.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just producing the most relevant parts of what we had before. I think we accepted that sentence as a non-contentious link to the next section. John Campbell (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it now needs looking at. It clearly IS contentious, I am sorry. It just does not make sense if what we are talking about is openness and broadening of membership, neither of which are practices at all. Meanwhile there were indeed practices, like rodding, which were quietly dropped and you do not make it clear why that was the case. In agreeing to the change of practices line I presumed it was that sort of thing (rodding etc)that we were talking about.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a little more complicated than that, as your list of 'controversial practices' went in without a proper reliable source. Do you have one, or should we remove that list? That would of course solve the question of this present sentence. It's not a question of what I make clear or not (which would be WP:OR), but of what the sources have to say. The quotation from John Smith of the EA (above) speaks of "moving considerably" and "current practices", which is clearly what the sentence in question is built from. If you have a different source while is adequately reliable, we can consider it.

Another source is William Kay in C. Partridge (ed), Encyclopedia of New Religions, a Guide (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2004):"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."

As an alternative, we could expand the sentence, sourcing it from the quotes above: "During the late 1980s and the 90s, the Jesus Fellowship improved its relationships with other churches, and broadened and loosened its membership so that community residents became a minority of the church. At the same time, and partly as a consequence, it re-examined and modified its practices, with the result that when it reapplied for membership of the Evangelical Alliance in 1999 it received endorsements from both local and national church leaders and was accepted into membership later in the year. It has never re-applied for membership of the Baptist Union, though a number key Baptist ministers have spoken at Jesus Fellowship events.

John Campbell (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems pretty reasonable, but as the practices are mentioned as distinct from broadening and loosening and bridge building, it remains vague about what practices were in fact modified. I do not believe I am being obtuse, am I? I don't seem to be making this clear enough.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to tie it as close as possible to the sources we have, but it is indeed vague. Find a better source if you can, because that is what we are tied to. John Campbell (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the following any better? is any closer to the sources:

"During the late 1980s and the 90s, the Jesus Fellowship improved its relationships with other churches, and broadened its membership so that community residents became a minority of the church. At the same time it loosened its style ~~and modified its practices~~, with the result that when it reapplied for membership of the Evangelical Alliance in 1999 it received endorsements from both local and national church leaders and was accepted into membership later in the year. It has never re-applied for membership of the Baptist Union, though a number key Baptist ministers have spoken at Jesus Fellowship events."

Any views? John Campbell (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is well written, John, but unless a way is found to define the modified practices, that will always be a weakeness in the article. I can't plug the gap because, not having been particularly interested for two decades, I do not have an archive of sources. You definitely have the advantage, there. It might be worth finding a source, if it exists, because without it, there is bound to be speculation about what practices were dropped to make your church acceptable to other Christians; and the need for such dramatic change rather implies that things which critics highlighted in the past and which the JFC vehemently denied, were in fact true after all.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we just need to remove the phrase about practices (as above), although the EA quote does contrast "current practices" with innuendoes and unsubstantiated allegations. I strikes me that you have already got the "sticking points" listed earlier (although unsourced, and that sentence probably needs recasting to reflect that), so I can't see what more you can expect ~~to get~~. Any other views? John Campbell (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

John.Given that much of the contentions on this article have been about unsourced stories/details, I feel that all details chosen to be included in this article 'must' be sourced.Therefore, if it's unsourced it can't be used.I do think that this article needs to become more balanced but unfortunately short of time through the summer to read deeper those independent sources that I've found but will try to find more time in a few months.Manicpixie (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"get"? That is a rather weasley comment, isn't itBristol Sycamore (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to substitute any opther word. No offence inteneded. John Campbell (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

John, the edit you suggest is a fair one. Which other part do you consider unsourced? One of the parts you agreed to before? Happy to look at anything you are unhappy with. YOu seem to be suggesting that by being a stickler for accuracy I am being in some way unreasonable. I am just holding out for precision or clarification.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the reworked sentence is an improvement, but I think it ought still to include some allusion to the EA's phrase "current practices": "re-examined its practices and loosened its style", maybe? My point was that the sentences between "In 1982, the Jesus Fellowship had joined the Evangelical Alliance, ... vulnerable to the accusation that they were a cult", though previously consensed, have no direct references at all, making it vulnerable to the charge that it is WP:OR. We should be even-handed about the strictness we apply throughout. As a compromise, given your comments below, I suggest we allow some remark about changed practices, or re-examined practices, and let the section on allegations I have just referred to above stand unless someone else wants to edit it. John Campbell (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there really not any reference anywhere in EA articles around the time of the re-admittance of the JA to the "practices" which they were happy that you had re-examined?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so, as the presenting issue at that stage had become relationships with other churches. John Campbell (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we can put this to bed. here is my proposed revision, as well-sourced as can be:

During the late 1980s and the 90s, the Jesus Fellowship improved its relationships with other churches, and broadened its membership so that community residents became a minority of the church.^[1] At the same time it re-examined its practices and loosened its style,^[2] with the result that when it reapplied for membership of the Evangelical Alliance in 1999 it received endorsements from both local and national church leaders^[3] and was accepted into membership later in the year.^[4] It has never re-applied for membership of the Baptist Union, though a number key Baptist ministers have spoken at Jesus Fellowship events.^[5]

The linked references don't work on talk pages but are:

Hunt in Pneuma, p. 40: "The decision in the late 1980s to become more open and link with other New Churches has been of particular importance. So has the decision, over the last decade, to broaden the membership so that now community residences [residents] form only one-third of the church."
William Kay in C. Partridge (ed), Encyclopedia of New Religions. "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."
idea [magazine of the Evangelical Alliance], May 1999: "...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...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. "Another high-profile movement who joined the EA family last autumn is the Jesus Fellowship 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 [General Secretary of the EA] 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.'"
Hunt in Pneuma, p. 27: "Prominent leaders of practically all the strands of the British charismatic and Pentecostal scene have spoken at the large public meetings of the Jesus fellowship, and are frequent contributors to its major publications “Jesus Life-style” and the “Jesus Revolution Street Paper”."

John Campbell (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the above proposed revision is well supported by the links, its worded well and easy to understand. I don't see a problem with this version being in the articalManicpixie (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

John, I think that is a fair summary of the sources you have provided. In the absence of others on the point of contention, the reference to the William Kay source is good as it acknowledges that aspects of membership were considered cultic. I am happy with the edit, though it may later need to be changed, if a source clarifying or detailing the rather vague "widen and loosen" part comes to light.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll transfer it to the Article page, then. John Campbell (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, WP:AVOID states that: "The adjective "cultic" (cultic group, cultic behavior) ... is used in sociological context referring to the technical meaning but rarely in everyday language referring to the everyday meaning of cult." John Campbell (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jesus Army/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The JA has had its share of controversy, not unreasonably since from the beginning its stance has been uncompromising on fundamental doctrine, belief and practice. Those who have been threatened and/or damaged by the rapid development of what has become an established, yet distinct representation of Christian belief are at pains to criticise and perhaps undermine, for reasons less to do with the preservation of accuracy, more with inability to reconcile past hurts. The beginnings of the Salvation Army were beset by similar difficulties. In context, therefore, within the prevailing atmosphere of post-charismatic practice of the time, it is hardly unsurprising that errors were made in both application of doctrine and praxis. Its membership in the beginning was mostly drawn from a radical element requiring firm, almost visionary leadership, which to some extent has been its subsequent hallmark.

Any organisation which has maintained a prophetic and single-minded stairway to heaven opens itself to dispute in matters relating to how its affairs are conducted to worship, evangelism and discipleship. If Wikipedia's balance is to be maintained then the historical perspective needs to be seen alongside the pastoral and socially relevant face that the organisation continues to seek to portray.

82.116.133.170 20:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)John MacArthur82.116.133.170 20:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC) participant, 1970's

Considerable effort has now been made to produce a balanced NPOV article, with the assistance of a neutral editor and an admin.John Campbell (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

^ Hunt in Pneuma, p. 40: "The decision in the late 1980s to become more open and link with other New Churches has been of particular importance. So has the decision, over the last decade, to broaden the membership so that now community residences [residents] form only one-third of the church."
^ William Kay in C. Partridge (ed), Encyclopedia of New Religions. "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."
^ idea [magazine of the Evangelical Alliance], May 1999: "...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...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. "Another high-profile movement who joined the EA family last autumn is the Jesus Fellowship 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 [General Secretary of the EA] 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.'"
^ Hunt in Pneuma, p. 27: "Prominent leaders of practically all the strands of the British charismatic and Pentecostal scene have spoken at the large public meetings of the Jesus fellowship, and are frequent contributors to its major publications “Jesus Life-style” and the “Jesus Revolution Street Paper”."

[1] Hunt in Pneuma, p. 40: "The decision in the late 1980s to become more open and link with other New Churches has been of particular importance. So has the decision, over the last decade, to broaden the membership so that now community residences [residents] form only one-third of the church."

[2] William Kay in C. Partridge (ed), Encyclopedia of New Religions. "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."

[3] [magazine of the Evangelical Alliance], May 1999: "...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...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."

[4] Christian Herald, 29 July 2000. "Another high-profile movement who joined the EA family last autumn is the Jesus Fellowship 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 [General Secretary of the EA] 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.'"

[5] Hunt in Pneuma, p. 27: "Prominent leaders of practically all the strands of the British charismatic and Pentecostal scene have spoken at the large public meetings of the Jesus fellowship, and are frequent contributors to its major publications “Jesus Life-style” and the “Jesus Revolution Street Paper”."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]