Surviving the Jesus Army: John agrees but does not concede

Wednesday, 2 July 2008

John agrees but does not concede

John stresses that he has conceded nothing; he felt it very important to stress that point. He had asserted that people must achieve concensus before editing. I had impressed on him the fact that actually anyone can edit without seeking approval from anybody else and after some to-and-froing he finally agreed that what I asserted was so, but he wants it clearly understood that he has made no concessions.

Is that clear? ;)

A meeting with the Prophet.

Talking to Noel Stanton and Mick Temperate again more than vindicated all our whistle blowing activities. This was a life affirming experience. We had always hoped that we'd had an impact, but we could not have anticipated quite how massive an impact it had been. Their candour on this point was illuminating.

The most important outcome, was an acknowledgement made by Mick "Temperate" Haines that throughout our campaign we had not been untruthful, only "unhelpful". Given their legal threats in the 1980s, this was quite a revelation. I'd always been scrupulous about only telling the truth, but I'd never dreamed that anyone in the JA would ever admit this.

Who are the JA anyway?

In this blog I make frequent reference to the JA (Jesus Army) despite the fact that when I was a member the JA didn't actually exist yet. I left the New Creation Christian Community (a commune), which formed part of the JFC (Jesus Fellowship Church), then regarded by many as a cult, in 1984 after 3 years there. When I was there, we were known as the Jesus People (or in Christian circles as Bugbrooke). The JA came into being in 1987.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Army
I co-wrote the Wikipedia article with a "neutral" editor, Rumiton and with the JA's Representative, John Campbell. I wrote as Bristol Sycamore. Here you can read the some of the negotiations. There are 2 archives as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_Army

However, I eventually stopped contributing a couple of months ago when the JA team stopped consulting and started comprehensively sanitising the wikipedia article. It now reads very much like an advert for the JA.....and cannot be considered neutral in any sense at all.

I'd originally got involved in the writing process because an earlier version of the Wikipedia article (as now) had acted as a PR exercise for the JA, so something more critical was called for -to balance things up. As the earlier article had been very pro-JA (and had led to censorship of dissent), the critical version was strongly worded (9nd Nov 07)
http://ja-1984.blogspot.com/2007/10/wikipedia-someone-please-re-write-crit.html However, the more embarrassing revelations made the JA more willing to negotiate a more neutral article.

Things have come full circle. I don't know if I have the energy or inclination to get involved with the process again; there seems little point when you know that ultimately you will be steam-rollered. But hopefully someone else will pick up the baton and run with it from here.