tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76983495753811887242024-03-04T21:07:05.310-08:00Surviving the Jesus ArmyEven now, a quarter century after I left the Jesus Army, it still affects my life. Here I attempt to explain why.
Peter EveleighPeter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-28754511498128170802011-05-14T06:52:00.002-07:002012-04-09T16:35:09.816-07:00Moving on, not moving in<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">Noel always said, you are either for us or against us. The irony is that if you are no longer against them, people who are supposedly free of the JA themselves assume that you must have re-joined. No sooner had I closed the redundant Dialogue forum, than people with nothing better to do were speculating on JAW that I had gone back to the JA.<br /><br />I haven't.<br /><br /><br /><br />.</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-8594781960215847122011-03-09T14:55:00.001-08:002011-03-09T15:11:13.524-08:00Dialogue closed<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">A few weeks ago I decided that since dialogue needed to be at very least two way, and as the JA had forbidden members, including the JA woman who started it with me, to get involved in the JA Dialogue group on Facebook, it served no purpose....except to testify to the stalemate. But it also signified a continuing involvement on my part, and I have decided that I don't have any interest in the JA now at all. I wrote a goodbye to all its members and closed it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">It is, as those intimate with the details will know, sadly the case that my most virulently nasty opponents have not been the JA at all in recent years, but various parties who took umbrage at my ambivalence about the JA, and who objected to me not supporting their more extreme, sometimes malevolent, positions.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">It is only fair to say that the JA is not the same group I left all those years ago, just as I am not the same man. I have recently talked to Trevor Saxby, telling him that I have moved on and really have no animosity towards them now at all. I think that is good.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">This blog has served its purpose...I no longer have any issues to work out through writing about the Jesus Army. I think it will be good, maybe even therapeutic (if any therapy at all is still needed), - or in a sense symbolic - to close it down.</span></span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-24343534724510630262010-07-15T03:02:00.000-07:002010-08-01T05:59:46.707-07:00A Jesus Fellowship Church Graduate<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">My girlfriend's son just graduated with a 2:1 in Chemistry. These last three years have turned him from a boy into a confident young man. He has been going through lots of changes, learning who he is and what he wants from life. These have been very formative years.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">He is the age I was when I left the Jesus Army, and it has only just occurred to me that I spent my "university years" in the JA. They weren't just any three years in my life. They were my "leaving home for the first time" years, my "becoming a man" years.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">It is no wonder, then, that those three years - that very short period in my life - has become so fundamental; that the JA had such a shattering and long lasting effect on me. The Jesus Fellowship Church is my Alma Mater (my "nourishing mother").<br /><br /></span></span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-33386624896097995802010-07-05T05:12:00.000-07:002010-07-05T06:17:27.810-07:00Firefighting<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">For a few years, now, I seem to have been firefighting postings on Jesus Army Watch, not because it is my job or indeed my forum, but because I feel that it has a role to play, which is undermined by some frankly lunatic posting. Interestingly, it is not the only forum, though. John Everett's group attracts a different, more sober type.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">This morning I realised that perhaps instead of trying, largely unsuccessfully, to defend the bona fides of JAW by urging greater honesty among JAW posters, I should think about what sorts of people post on the site. And I realised that maybe what we have here, in microcosm, is what we have with the JA.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">People who join John Everett's group were, like me, "members" of the church and community, whereas people who post on JAW, seem to be attracted to it because it allows them complete anonymity and free rein in whatever abusive postings they wish to write...and they are or were mainly "camp followers", fringe members who were already quite damaged people before the JA met them.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">In fairness to the JA, when they say that someone "was never truly one of us" it is almost certainly fair comment these days, when the church has liberalised so very dramatically. In my time the same phrase was a way of discrediting someone who might even have been a celibate elder (I believe it was once said of John Everett in a red-top, for instance). </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Perhaps all churches SHOULD target the sorts of people who have the potential to be dangerous enemies if they become disaffected. In its efforts to appear less controlling (or perhaps even its desire to control less), the JA has amassed a large number of mentally ill, drug abused, unstable associates at its fringes, who when they leave and start posting in anger, have the potential to damage the JA and who are not apparently constrained by the same norms of fairness and honesty as people with less turbulent backgrounds.<br /><br />The irony is, though, that they discredit the JA-Watch site more with their absurdly exaggerated claims and their paranoid rantings, which are easily dismissed by the JA and which any sensible reader will recognise for what they are anyway.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Far less extreme posting from people who really were fully committed members of the fellowship carries much greater power and is considerably more credible, which is why I do hope that John keeps </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255); font-family: arial;" href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#%21/group.php?gid=289180595655&v=info&ref=ts">his group</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> going. Perhaps it is time to accept that JAW is no longer worth saving, ditch it and support The JA Blues.<br /></span></span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-36102594026563958952010-03-20T03:49:00.000-07:002010-03-20T04:05:26.845-07:00The JA Blues<span style="font-family:arial;">John Campbell (who controls JA public relations) urges people like Daniel Stonell not to post on forums or groups like <a style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);" href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=115709932003&ref=ts#%21/group.php?v=info&ref=ts&gid=115709932003">Jesus Army Dialogue</a>. Older members, who are generally more canny, know better than to do so anyway. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Young members, fringe members or somewhat disaffected members who wish to prove their loyalty to any JAs who may be reading (and who we have known, not infrequently, to go on to split shortly afterwards) will often express their radicalism in terms which are indicrete and therefore make the JA look cult-like, at a time when the JA is anxious to look mainstream.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The purpose of John Everett's site, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=115709932003&ref=ts#%21/group.php?gid=289180595655&ref=ts"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">The JA Blues</span></a>, is to provide a haven of contact for ex-members, many of whom are very vulnerable (some having left only recently) and must not be intimidated or bullied by people still in the JA, which was why suggestions that they had demons led John to remove Daniel.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I support John in this. I am not a natural censor, but if JAs want to argue or to attack or criticise ex-members (generically, not personally), let them go to Jesus Army Dialogue (if they are brave enough to resist the church's blanket ban on posting there, which is frankly unlikely). The JA Blues is not the place to do it. Alternatively, if they would prefer not to post at a venue over which I have some control (because I am known to be rather persuasive, according to Sarah Hughes, anyway), they can always post at <a href="http://www.voy.com/110322/"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Jesus Army Watch</span></a>.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">John Everett is currently on holiday and has asked me to look after The JA Blues while he is away. </span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-50536242941573040102009-12-18T02:26:00.000-08:002009-12-18T02:29:10.052-08:00Merry Christmas, Everyone, whatever you believe<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Having defended the magic of one child's belief in Santa from the cruel bullying of an older child today, it is clear to me that it doesn't matter that neither Santa nor Jesus are real (IMO). What matters is that believing in them is special to some, and there is no mileage in being unkind to them. Why deliberately make someone unhappy just so you can be right....about something that doesn't matter anyway?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"> Christmas is most important to children. I don't have any, so after today (the last school day), I shall just get on with what DOES matter to me. But in the meantime, I have been pulling out all stops at school -a grotto in the classroom, a xmas tree with lights on it and with presents under it, an advent calendar, party hats, sewn snowmen and origami santas, games, music, atmosphere and exchanging gifts.....and saying thank you.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"> How can any of these things be unchristian; indeed how can it be christian to witthold such things from children, especially children who have not made a personal commitment to the JA way of life? It is no more righteous than that bully's revelation to the little boy in my class who, was heartbroken to be told that Father Christmas doesn't exist.</span><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"> So, whatever you believe, Merry Christmas, Everyone!</span></span><br /></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"><br /><br /><br />.<br /></span></span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-68182899550525282432009-11-27T16:39:00.000-08:002009-11-27T16:44:06.475-08:00Stockholm SyndromeI have just posted this on <a href="http://www.voy.com/110322/8069.html?z=1">Jesus Army Watch</a>, in response to Sarah Hughes's assertion that I wanted to control her, which is why she decided to pull out of JAD:<br /><br /><br />"I didn't want to control you. I wanted to share a<br />responsibility with you as an equal.<br /><br />Which means that I took a leap of faith and took you at your word and trusted you. I went out on a limb in what could have been something quite revolutionary.....in which, far from controlling you, I was undertaking to relinquish control to you, a member of the JA.<br /><br />Your good will and trustworthiness lasted less than a week.<br /><br />But at the end of the day, I don't hold you entirely responsible because I know that you are not in control of your own life. Everyone on this site [Jesus Army Watch] knows how hard it is to resist the will of the Elders...and if you are to be able to live in peace with the brethren, you must find a way to suppress your own feelings and accept that you are wrong.<br /><br />....and then demonstrate your loyalty to the brethren by attacking those whose trust you had previously enjoyed outside the fellowship."<br /><br /><!-- google_ad_section_end -->Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-37108456025660058692009-09-02T04:27:00.000-07:002009-09-02T04:31:42.191-07:00No news is good news<span style="font-family: arial;">I haven't given the JA much thought for a month (apart from contact from one ex- member who is doing well), as it has been the summer holiday and I have been flying, welding, doing family stuff etc and only really think about the JA, normally, as a distraction from work. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">So this is just a pop-in to keep the thing active. I wouldn't want the JA to think that I have forgotten them ;)</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-64229332051782247252009-07-21T08:40:00.001-07:002009-07-22T02:33:27.179-07:00The group was Sarah Hughes' idea<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJFCr6uuL5LPZts_tiJMOif8yAa7ym0R16NYlv8nOeMvmo4o8u5i4-hlLeK0THzTU8x5zaZba0AlfgEm-gli3wqT4LKNtFkrxK9ICPJhtMvE2DVHslC4AknWnXgDowgf29mx9vl6YbMh0/s1600-h/set+up+forum.bmp"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJFCr6uuL5LPZts_tiJMOif8yAa7ym0R16NYlv8nOeMvmo4o8u5i4-hlLeK0THzTU8x5zaZba0AlfgEm-gli3wqT4LKNtFkrxK9ICPJhtMvE2DVHslC4AknWnXgDowgf29mx9vl6YbMh0/s400/set+up+forum.bmp" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5360939162204349602" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">23rd June 2009</span><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Click image to read it easily</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;font-size:85%;" ><span>I wasn't sure whose idea the dialogue group was but this reveals that it had been Sarah's and that we had discussed who would be allowed to post on it and had agreed the name and that I would set it up on our behalf.</span></span><br /></div><br /><br />"I want my name taking off the Jesus Army Dialogue site. No one joins from the JA cause they see it as a joke! You really are embarrassing yourself, nobody else and no one is biting the carrot. Even ex members are cringing at you.. the church gets stronger with your opposition and bitter rants so keep it up..we love it and it brings us all many hours of amusement!! especially seeing as its only you writing to yourself.. everyone else eventually sees you for what you are.. rename it "I have issues with the Jesus Army that nobody else cares about" and remove my name..."<br /><div style="text-align: center;"> <span style="font-family:arial;">-Sarah Hughes, Tuesday 21st July 2009</span></div>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-78266596150066886492009-07-21T07:43:00.000-07:002009-07-21T08:19:22.582-07:00Evidence of how dramatically people's minds in the JA can be changed<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip-jEeTn0pZScr6nJl9JOFJ6NZLeKcHQVEJim-SAYMtOjkk_Ob9u_y5vw0KRztBOs297btdsju6pjjlFkn5RZtDBffm7w_9-c0UWNDHLRxkZ8FcQIPAMMWiQ4ZsMpkgrLQGOLbd4Tz3NE/s1600-h/progress.bmp"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip-jEeTn0pZScr6nJl9JOFJ6NZLeKcHQVEJim-SAYMtOjkk_Ob9u_y5vw0KRztBOs297btdsju6pjjlFkn5RZtDBffm7w_9-c0UWNDHLRxkZ8FcQIPAMMWiQ4ZsMpkgrLQGOLbd4Tz3NE/s400/progress.bmp" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5360927984304383762" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipmgV-he0zOoDDWTYXKvQ8t-CpcJDN_HMkFZLfs8RWpCgOfqpQC9m_e7xhGTo1P6MqHJfxjFkOgXGcyzblLdDXrW565h8wlOyHOdSpNnQmyzt7di2hpKKts6vmctHIZnRReCAi4bCEgy4/s1600-h/remarkable+ali+and+sarah.bmp"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipmgV-he0zOoDDWTYXKvQ8t-CpcJDN_HMkFZLfs8RWpCgOfqpQC9m_e7xhGTo1P6MqHJfxjFkOgXGcyzblLdDXrW565h8wlOyHOdSpNnQmyzt7di2hpKKts6vmctHIZnRReCAi4bCEgy4/s400/remarkable+ali+and+sarah.bmp" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5360927990498096578" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy54STicMbFZ0b_eBzOd5K6Iy9K0Yph2ZoWERM17444Wwt9YylHPz7O76FbYiJ-FKqhTbSrcckh55ktEHlXSPQxmEvmSgg1h1haU8441nYwOeD2vEYqTIvQWinMpvldk1X7_4RAYc6tUQ/s1600-h/closed.bmp"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy54STicMbFZ0b_eBzOd5K6Iy9K0Yph2ZoWERM17444Wwt9YylHPz7O76FbYiJ-FKqhTbSrcckh55ktEHlXSPQxmEvmSgg1h1haU8441nYwOeD2vEYqTIvQWinMpvldk1X7_4RAYc6tUQ/s400/closed.bmp" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5360927996003050626" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:times new roman;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-style: italic;">Nb. The above images are in chronological order but the postings on them stack upwards (see the timings). They have been selected as examples of the positive dialogue which was ended so suddenly by the JA.</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" > Click on each to read it easily</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">An angry assault from Sarah Hughes today, the young woman in the fellowship whose idea it was to set up a dialogue page on Facebook when Claire Hall closed down a very positive dialogue that she, Ali and I had been having, made me feel that I should publish the starkly contrasting posts.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Ali. you will recall, said he had been in a happy bubble all his membership, unaware of how the church had beaten kids in the past and after a while decided that he would challenge the church about this and other practices. Sarah, who had been beaten herself said we needed to find the people who had been hurt by the JA and bring healing.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">It was an extraordinary chain of events.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Ali went off feeling he had been commissioned by God to root out abuses and Sarah continued talking about starting the Dialogue which is in the process of dying a death, not least of all because Sarah suddenly changed her mind once the thing was up and running, citing the neglect of her mothering duties.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Both of them are now, by contrast with our correspondences, postings and texts, virulently against my efforts. It just goes to show how hard it is for individuals in the JA, however strong their independently formulated ideas and convictions, to do their own thing, and how easily they can be swayed back to the party line.</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-1509529851406597662009-06-28T07:58:00.000-07:002009-07-22T02:52:12.189-07:00JA hope that dialogue can be squashed if I am left talking to myself.<span style="font-family:arial;">A disappointing setback to the</span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=115709932003&ref=mf#/group.php?gid=115709932003&ref=mf"> Dialogue</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> has been a withdrawal from the process of both Ali and Sarah. Both are quite adamant that nobody tells them what they may do, but only the day after Sarah and I had discussed who would be allowed to post on our forum, the text of the profile etc, she told me that she felt she was neglecting her duties as a mother and would not be able to be a member of the group, let alone run it with me. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Initially I felt like I had been made a fool of, having been encouraged by Sarah to set it up on her behalf, as she is not technically minded, only then to be left looking like she disavowed our joint project. But then it occurred to me that, sadly, this rather illustrates what I have always felt, that while there are good people like her and Ali who really do want to change the fellowship for the better, there are forces within the church which are resistant and will bring pressure to bear to stop members speaking and acting freely.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Naturally I feel very hurt and disappointed, especially by some of the rather defensive and curt correspondence that followed, having felt that we had genuinely made friends, but ultimately, whatever your relationship with a JA member, you have to remember that their first loyalty is to their church and as I am persona non grata, any friendship can only be very tenuous at best.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">I know this will sound patronising, but dealing with individual JA members is a little like dealing with my school pupils. They are all up for something, full of passion, keen to get involved and give you lots of assurances....but none of their promises are really worth anything unless you have sent a letter home and got their parents to sign it. A JA is not free to decide anything important without their elder's say-so. Sarah and Ali were absolutely adamant that nobody tells them what to do, but self-evidently this is not so.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I still hope very much that some good can come from the forum, but if John Campbell and the other leaders can bring sufficient pressure to bear to stop members of the JA from taking part (and let's face it, if they can stop independent souls like Sarah and Ali, they will not find it hard to stop others), what dialogue can there be. really?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Another ex-JA has suggested that I am the achilles heel in the plan. Nobody will post on anything with which my name is associated, when I am known to be a critic who has helped people leave, so I am hoping that he may, as he has suggested, take it over.</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-29374617926713816952009-06-24T03:14:00.000-07:002009-06-24T03:21:25.686-07:00Jesus Army Dialogue<span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:130%;" >I have set up <a style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);" href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=115709932003&ref=mf">Jesus Army Dialogue,</a> a group on Facebook. This is a joint effort between me and Sarah Hughes, a member of the JA I have been making friends with. We really hope that this can be a chance for both sides of the argument to see each others points of view, where previously we have been combative or defensive. We want to build trust, so as to encourage openness and achieve a measure of reconciliation and peace.<br /><br />The time feels right.</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-59734866118808233192009-06-20T13:23:00.000-07:002009-07-21T07:26:32.029-07:00John Campbell has confirmed that children were beaten by leaders, as well as by their own parents<span style="font-family:arial;">Ali is back in touch and the air has cleared. He confirms that John "Perceptive" Campbell admitted that in the old days children were rodded by leaders. It is one claim that I had made and which had grieved Ali a great deal, as he is a father and can't imagine letting anyone touch his children.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I am not yet quite clear what John told Ali which led him to feel that I had misled him, but if John admitted even this much, I know that Ali will feel that his mission is justified.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I have told him that I do not believe that the fellowship has rodded children for a very long time, but my concern is that the rodding of children and spooning of babies and toddlers is a shameful part of the fellowship's past, which was discreetly buried when the JFC sought readmission to the Evangelical Alliance, and because of the subsequent denials of this and other things, those who were hurt by the policy feel that their pain isn't taken seriously.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Unless the fellowship is open about this past practice, its claims to have changed cannot really be said to be righteous.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Addendum<br /></span><br />John Campbell has since denied that the conversation, as described in some detail by Ali, ever took place and asked me to remove the suggestion that he made any such concession. Since Ali's account opens his church up to criticism, it is hard to believe that, as a loyal member, he would have made up John's concession. But for the record, John denies that he gave it. It is clear from his response to me that John accepts that my take on events is entirely consistent with Ali's description and that pursuing the matter would be counter-productive.<br /><br />The fact that Ali is a person capable of being leaned on to cease contact with me, despite his new-found mission, shows that he is a loyal member of his church, so any suggestion that he would have deliberately opened his church up to censure by making up his conversation with John Campbell is clearly improbable.<br /></span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-85016052896139802702009-06-18T01:18:00.000-07:002009-06-28T07:58:13.407-07:00In response to the call for openness, the JA has closed the Facebook Group<span style="font-family: arial;">In response to the call for openness, the JA has closed the Facebook Group in which one member spoke passionately about his intention to root out the fellowship's past abuses and bring healing to people hurt by the church...and thereby make the church a more beautiful Bride of Christ.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">His mission was sincere.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Closing the Group, however, suggests that the JA are far from ready for such a revolution.</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-3027869525282520362009-06-18T00:50:00.000-07:002009-07-21T07:28:33.564-07:00I have offended Ali, the member of the JA who feels inspired to root out abuse in the JA's past, by wording my last article rather badly so that it left what he sees as a false impression of his feelings. This was never my intention. Ali, so I apologise unreservedly.<br /><br />The mistake came about because I conflated several people's feelings into one article and Ali has assumed that I am talking about him, when talking about another. It was Sarah who spoke of dirty secrets in the past and who felt that we should forgive, not Z. <span style="font-weight: bold;">(click image to make bigger)</span> Sarah did not use the phrase first. I had suggested that they existed and she was using the phrase back to me.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRmrg8orDyRUvAtzEhQM8KGThAvXdEqZ62s-8pIRAsd7tJOXdVxTQU8YidmJi_mzrmpmx_cZPKwzrR3zTr-pymxqanxkhpr2JFhxb40_D5sWTxHlay3z0jKS_Y3LGiURFyycgjEt72nZU/s1600-h/responding+to+sarah+on+6th+at+1051%2B.bmp"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRmrg8orDyRUvAtzEhQM8KGThAvXdEqZ62s-8pIRAsd7tJOXdVxTQU8YidmJi_mzrmpmx_cZPKwzrR3zTr-pymxqanxkhpr2JFhxb40_D5sWTxHlay3z0jKS_Y3LGiURFyycgjEt72nZU/s400/responding+to+sarah+on+6th+at+1051%2B.bmp" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5348804735748218130" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Both Ali and Sarah love God very much and love the JA and want to stay in it. But that doesn't mean that either of them are happy about the JA's past. Ali, I know, is passionately committed to bringing healing for people hurt by what he regards as abuses of authority. This is clearly a sincere position and even though he no longer trusts me and seems to have been convinced by John Campbell that much of what I said was lies, he is still dedicated to bringing healing, which is very much to his credit as a Christian man.<br /><br />Sarah and Ali want to stay with the JA. But that doesn't mean they are happy to live with the fellowship's invidious past. They are going to do what they can to root it out and make the fellowship address it.<br /><br />It doesn't bode well for the the future of openness that no sooner had Ali gone to John Campbell, than the JA closed down the Facebook Group.<br /><br />Anticipating this, however, I have taken screenprints of all recent events on the Group and will publish them in due course, to ensure that they remain visible. Making them invisible has to be the point of closing the Group, after all. And that being the case, you do have to wonder how open the JA really are about addressing the past.Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-72117735811931739052009-06-11T04:22:00.000-07:002009-06-11T05:04:07.646-07:00A new era - one of openness about a cultic past<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">With Noel's passing has come what appears to be a greater <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">curiosity</span> on the part of members about the fellowship's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">cultic</span> past. Most current members....including any long term members who joined after the late 1980s... will often have difficulty <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">recognising</span> my description of the church and are therefore understandably irritated by my "propaganda", but several people have now talked to me (both on forums and in private) about the period before they were members and there appears to be an increasing readiness to believe that the fellowship has what one of them calls "dirty secrets".</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">There is some disagreement about whether bringing the secrets out into the light of day would be healthy. Clearly I think it would, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">indeed</span> I have said that without that openness, the church can't genuinely be said to have moved on, especially since the very leader(s) taking over control of the church were the very ones who advocated and enforced the now discredited policies.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">What is very clear to me is that around the time of the expulsion from the Evangelical Alliance the elders realised a need to tone down and modify a lot of policies and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">quietly</span> bury some other more controversial ones, especially as rehabilitation would require the cultivation of powerful friends, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">who</span> might be a lot less friendly if they realised what had really been going on at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Bugbrooke</span>.<br /><br />Until then their membership of the EA had been largely cosmetic. It gave them some kind of respectability at a time when there was widespread concern in the churches in the UK about their <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">cultic</span> practices. They <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">coul</span><span style="font-family:arial;">d say, we are not a cult but a member of the largest body of Evangelicals in the country.</span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"> The very fact that they were not in good fellowship with any of these churches gave the EA convenient grounds for dismissing the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">JA</span>, rather <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">than</span> investigating the nastier controversies at a time when the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">JA</span> refused to meet to discuss them with John Everett, myself and members of the council.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">If new friends were to be cultivated, no longer would people who left be said to be damned, no longer would the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">JA</span> call themselves the Kingdom of God or other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Christians</span> "worldly", no longer would children be <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">rodded</span> or Christmas banned, now children would receive presents and be allowed toys; rather than being shunned, members seeking to leave would be encouraged into looser styles of membership, etc</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">And if anyone who had been victims o fthe JA's dirty secrets spoke of them again, they would simply be denied and the suggestion would be that critics had simply made these things up out of a hatred for what Jesus was trying to accomplish. </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">But just a few days ago I urged someone who has been in fellowship for 21 years to just go and ask someone who had been around a lot longer whether children in the past had been <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">punished</span> with rods, and to his credit he admitted that he had lived obliviously in a "happy bubble" all these years. Now he is determined to ask questions. A number of people who have known the church a long time are asking serious questions and I have been asked what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">form</span> of apology would satisfy me.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Noel's death brings an end of an era and with it the possibility of asking previously <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">unconscienable</span> questions. And there is the slightest chance that good, keen young Christians who love the JA they know will not be happy to live with dirty secrets that their elders and parents were prepared to bury. I dearly hope that they will believe, as I do, that a church can only really move on if it has been honest and open about its past.</span></span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-43489067645173346142009-05-31T06:55:00.001-07:002009-05-31T07:02:44.159-07:00censoring any suggestion that Noel was controlling<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinB-2plkDEVQIXMCcjN4rVbKi9KrWuEr-1UAK3zHu1I92xknBhmKjsYsUOnYq6wpe0-3tgky4FhGEtMD2Hn9lJQV8l0o6ih06WldgN4Fk5aEszPqiWfGvW1UbMv6pK6Sfrsrzq-ouF0fI/s1600-h/deleting+noel.bmp"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinB-2plkDEVQIXMCcjN4rVbKi9KrWuEr-1UAK3zHu1I92xknBhmKjsYsUOnYq6wpe0-3tgky4FhGEtMD2Hn9lJQV8l0o6ih06WldgN4Fk5aEszPqiWfGvW1UbMv6pK6Sfrsrzq-ouF0fI/s400/deleting+noel.bmp" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5341987976002292034" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">click image to </span>make it legible<br /></div><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Simon Hall, (admin at the JA's Facebook page) misses the irony of today's activity. Having just pointed out that he was deleting any reference to Noel and having deleted a posting in which I pointed out that Noel had been regarded as infallible and that questioning him was said to be "not in the spirit", he went on to laugh at my suggestion that their lives are controlled.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Ironically, he left a posting in which I said that allowing anyone to post anything, in contrast to Brian's nasty little anti-JA forum, where he bans anyone who disgrees with him, was a good thing.</span></span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-72021837479662275202009-05-22T09:02:00.000-07:002010-08-01T05:32:53.708-07:00<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">A completely bizarre consequence of Noel Stanton's death is that some are expressing a sense of desperation at the loss of his benign protection from extreme elders. One man tells me he has been in the JA for years and is gay. He feels that his sexuality is an abomination and appears not to hold it against the church that when he came out, his elder banned him from meetings. He believes that Noel could not only have helped him with his "problem", as the elders clearly can't, but would protect him from their harsh treatment. He believes that his only hope died with Noel.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">This phenomenon is not new to me, of course. I remember getting a heavying from all the elders of my household (because I had caused a terrific scandal when a sister and I fell in love and had discussed our feelings) and then talking in terms of "splitting" (leaving the church) and getting a phonecall from Noel in which he asked if the elders had been too heavy, and in which he seemed to imply that he would get them to back off. Yet, it was quite clear from the content of the heavying that the elders were acting on instructions from Noel, who apart from anything else, set the tone and content of everything that went on. In those days the Elders met with Noel every Monday, then passed the latest edicts down that Tuesday at Agapé.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">What my correspondent fails too see, perhaps because in grief we tend to canonise the recently-departed, is that if he was banned from meetings for being openly gay, the elder took his lead from Noel. Noel liked to play good cop to the elders' bad cops, but at the end of the day he was the law-maker. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Jesus Army homophobia has its origins in Noel Stanton's own attitude towards human sexuality and his uncompromising attitude towards what he regarded as sexual sin, straight or gay...which led to an over-emphasis on celibacy, even for married couples (who were urged to have sex for procreation only...avoiding any sex which was inspired by "lust"). At a recent meeting, a friend who was present tells me, a man "confessed" to having been gay and claimed to have been "healed" of it by God, and this profession was met with rapturous approval.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The JA are very keen to appear inclusive but the only gays who are really tolerated are those who have sought to bury their sexuality in baptism and step out of the waters cleansed, to live lives as celibates. Homosexuals are only really accepted if they see what they are as abhorrent to God.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I feel desperately sorry for homosexuals in the JA who in order to be considered acceptable stay in the closet in a state of self-loathing or come out of it and then seek to be healed of what my correspondent calls "his problem". But the ironic tragedy is that this abominable situation was of Noel Stanton's making; he would not have been this man's salvation but is responsible for the fact that he sees himself as unclean.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Now that Noel is dead, this man is distraught that he will not be there to save him, either from his problem or from an over-zealous eldership. The eldership, meanwhile, are just being true to their deceased founder's vision of the Kingdom of God.</span></span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-68731365151622674722009-05-21T02:44:00.000-07:002009-05-21T02:50:51.636-07:00A loss second only to the death of Jesus<span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" >Noel Stanton died yesterday.<br /><br />I have been trying to think how I feel about it because I know that I will be asked, and honestly I can't say I feel anything much at all. Noel doesn't feel like more than an acquaintance I knew a very long time ago.<br /><br />However, in stark contrast, a JA member who has been in the fellowship for about fifteen years and who has been writing to me for a couple of months told me last night that Noel's loss to humanity is second only to Jesus.</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-73982454424616595072008-12-03T14:59:00.000-08:002008-12-06T03:52:14.487-08:00If you mean "spiritual" abuse (whatever that is meant to be), say so. Calling it just "abuse" seems deliberately misleading<span style="font-family:arial;">I have always believed, as a critic of the Jesus Army, that if I was to have an impact on JA members they had to be able to recognise the truth in things that I said, even if they might never be able to admit it either to themselves or to me. Recognising the truth would make it possible for them to consider the points I raised, which I felt arose from those mutually accepted facts.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">To do that I have attempted over the years not to use vocabulary which puts a negative spin on things that happened in the</span> <span style="font-family:arial;">JA. For instance, I never use the word brainwash or ever claim to have been forced to do anything against my will. I try to avoid casting in a negative light anything which I would, at the time, have accepted as reasonable. Maybe I am lucky in that the objections I have to the fellowship are to things which I militated against as a member; I am fortunate that I did not suffer as badly as some others. I never experienced anything which I did not think was well intentioned, if misguided.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Some however claim to have been abused in the JA, and from what I do know of the JA, I have no doubt that they have indeed been very badly treated, but have taken issue recently with the use of the word abuse, particularly when it has been made clear that they were not harmed physically or sexually. This is an issue which has exercised me recently, as I have been involved in a very public spat with someone who speaks freely of having been abused as a child (pre-JA) and of having subsequently been abused in the JA, though I know from private correspondence that whatever she experienced in the JA was not sexual in nature. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I take issue with people using words like "abuse" when criticising the JA (especially when in the same posts they refer to sexual abuse in her past) because the casual and unqualified use of the word seems calculated to smear the JA, as readers will be left with the impression that child abuse etc is what is implied. What makes me most angry about this is that such people know that readers will automatically assume that they are referring to sexual or physical abuse and they deliberately leave it vague so that the JA will suffer the greatest measure of suspicion as a result.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">It is disingenuous of them to say that all abuse is abuse (as if a harsh word is as severe as rape) and that they are not explicitly saying </span><span style="font-family:arial;">that the abuse is sexual. It is downright misleading if they later concede that the abuse was "spiritual", given that it is on a secular forum and that most people do not recognise the existence of spiritual abuse anyway.....let alone automatically infer it. If they mean bullying, maybe that is the word they should use and not abuse at all.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">One has attempted to say that I am in some way defending the abuse which she says goes on in the JA or that I am accusing her of lying. This reminds me of the time that I did indeed defend Noel Stanton from the allegation that he protected paedophiles; that too was an allegation designed to cause the JA maximum damage without being founded on any evidence at all, and that too led to me being accused of defending "abuse" in the JA. It is the kind of unsophisticated sophistry you tend to get from the shrill people on some forums.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Of course I do not support abuse of any kind. And I am not actually defending the JA, as such. I am defending a principle. Describing bullying of adults as being on a par with the abuse of children is foolish and appears to degrade the seriousness of child abuse. Further, misleading language makes it hard to reach people we want to help in the JA.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">As I am a member of a profession which has to deal not only with children suffering from real abuse, but also with children and their parents who use the paranoia around abuse to make malicious allegations against teachers, TAs, social workers etc in order to punish them for doing their jobs, I take this kind of thing very seriously. You almost never hear of conscientious children making malicious allegations of abuse; it will almost always be disruptive kids who can't get their own way, who strike back by accusing adults in school of something - because they want to hurt them. This has devastating consequences for these dedicated professionals, many of whose careers are permanently ruined, even the lucky few who are eventually exonerated. So, when I see people using words like abuse, people who know that readers will assume that sexual abuse is implied and readers who have probably never even heard of "spiritual" abuse, it makes my blood boil.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">If genuine abuse takes place in the JA, social services and the police need to be brought in immediately. Anyone who talks of abuse in the JA but who has not alerted the authorities must be assumed to be muck-raking in order to cause maximum damage. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Anyone who says they are accusing the JA of abuse in order to help the victims of abuse is just not being honest. The way to stop abuse if you know it is going on is to call in the authorties and really get something done, especially post Baby P, when child services etc will be falling over backwards to be seen to be doing everything possible to protect children. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">If however, you are not talking about child sexual abuse, it is morally reprehensible not to make that perfectly clear. Almost nobody has ever heard of spititual abuse, whatever the heck that is, but if that is what this person means, that is what she should say....and as nobody knows what it is, she should spell it out....not leave it entirely vague.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Language is powerful stuff. It must be handled carefully.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">Why? Because if we want the members of the JA reading it to feel that someone is arguing their corner (with the possibility that people will be emboldened to leave) they have to be able to recognise what we say as representative. I am pretty confident that most would say that they are having a rough time of it, prehaps even a truly horrendous time, but very much doubt that they will think, "I am being <em>abused</em>".</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-60750461602971286642008-11-07T08:17:00.000-08:002008-11-07T08:59:31.946-08:00If you can do no more good, go flying!<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">Clearly the JA will not answer for the past, not publically anyway. But as those who remember the past carefully avoid the public spotlight and are defended by people who weren't even around back then, and who have had the past carefully guarded even from them, perhaps nobody should be susprised.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">And if those zealots defending the JA don't know of its past offenses and are genuinely indignant about the criticisms they are defending their church from, does that not perhaps suggest that the church has changed? I'd like to think so.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">I think that my unfortunate recent experience of the JA was down to the house elder, who had joined his house church to the JA, being so determined to be a hardliner in order to impress the centralist elders; hard-liners of the original, unreformed JA. His need to be seen to be the big man cost the JA's new reputation. But it can perhaps be seen as exceptional behaviour?</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">It would always cause me concern that new elders recognise the hard-line centralists as the people to impress and that the leaders who date back to the JA's more cultic days are still in charge...principally Noel Stanton and Mick "Temperate" Haines(Noel's Timothy).....but right now I don't feel there is a lot of point being a critic.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">In the past I always saw to it that what I wrote could be recognised as the truth by ordinary members, who would be challenged to think, "Yes, I see where Peter Eveleigh is coming from. I don't agree, but I need to think about how to answer that criticism, because if I can't, maybe he has a point."</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">But when current JA's first response to anything I say is one of disbelief and is coupled to a sense that I must be lying out of some sense of bitterness which has <span style="font-family:arial;">lasted twenty-plus years, I have no chance of being a force for good.</span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"> The remodelling of the JA has clearly been very effective but with the pre-reform elders still in charge, I am afraid that some way down the line the young or new members will discover that actually the warnings I have been given were justified. Fortunately for them, there are lots of support groups, etc, and though they won't see it now, having forums like the Sheffield one will give them a way of making contacts. And if that is all that so-called "discussion" forum has become, well that is not such a bad thing.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">So, for now anyway, I am going flying.</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-14960175162683628042008-10-18T03:41:00.000-07:002008-10-18T03:45:37.654-07:00In a nutshell, what admissions from the JA would satisfy me?<a href="http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=4191652&posted=1#post4191652"><span style="font-family:arial;">Circa's comment </span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">that there would never be any terms which would satisfy me made me wonder what three admissions would make me willing to let go. I think in essence, these three would do it:</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">1. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">In the past the Jesus Fellowhip taught openly and without shame, self-conciousness or embarrassment that they were the Kingdom of God on Earth and called themselves Zion. They regarded all other christian churches as worldly, compromising, backslidden, uncommitted etc. They believed that such Christians lived under grace alone and that the only excuse such people had for not being in Zion (in the JFC) too was the fact that they had not met the JFC. They believed that any person who met the JFC but did not join it, must be judged by God as disobeying the call to covenant community.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">2 </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Any person who left the JFC was said to be en-route for apostasy, that leaving the fellowship was not merely leaving one church with the possibility of going to another, but was actually an act of rebellion against God and that such people must be judged by God accordingly; judged for breaking their life-long covenants. Noel taught unselfconsciously about people who left committing the sin against the Holy Spirit, with the danger that in the moment of rebellion that person risked God not only never being able to forgive them (the sinner having committed the unforgivable sin), but actually actively hardening their hearts against Him, himself. People who left, even if they claimed to be leaving with their faith intact, were encouraged to believe that they would forever live as spiritual orphans who would never find their spiritual homes. Some of us were even told that if we became sick, we would not recover because we would not have the covering of God.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">3 </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">People like me who spoke out about the JFC had some really horrible lies made up about us in order to blacken our reputations among people who might otherwise believe us. One sympathetic member of the press (now a very highly admired author and correspondent for the New Statesman, The Observer etc) rang me after doing a piece on the JA to advise me that they had suggested to him that I had been forced to leave the fellowship for trying to have sex with under-age members! </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">That was probably their worst mistake in dealing with me, for far from making me afraid to speak out, it made me more certain than before what sort of people I was dealing with; and more sure of just how spooked they must be by my efforts. Noel rang my minister and told him I was mentally unstable and unreliable. As I have said before, a sister was contacted this year and told that every churchman in her town would be contacted and told she was a treacherous jezebel. We are always painted as bitter misfits who never fitted in, who were always trouble-makers etc, even though two fellow critics in the 1980s had been elders and had lived in fellowship for many years.So, there you go. In essence, I would be satisfied if there was an admission that in the past the JA regarded itself as the Kingdom of God, that people feared losing their salvations if they left and that those of us who spoke out were blackened with the sorts of lies that could easily have destroyed weaker people.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Perhaps the scale of the things that trouble me most about the JA will help put in perspective just why leaving the fellowship had such a life-affecting impact on me, and why it is hard for me to let go.</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-38309673749965013252008-10-13T15:52:00.000-07:002008-10-13T15:53:20.273-07:00Solo!Today I flew solo.<br /><br />:)Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-27413677579139804202008-10-11T12:03:00.000-07:002008-10-11T12:09:04.021-07:00Secondary Sources found to support claims about cult lists<span style="font-family:arial;">See wiki for the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_Army#CIC_and_FAIR_SECONDARY_SOURCES_found"><span style="font-family:arial;color:#3333ff;">new section</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> on the finding of two secondary sources which confirm the existence of CIC and FAIR, in the former of which John Campbell is actually quoted as denying what the CIC are saying. The latter (about FAIR) is a book which I think John has successfully cited himself (certainly the author is), so he won't want to discredit this one. And since the tone of the quote from Chryssides is pro-JA, John will have trouble arguing that it is a bit of anti-cult polemic.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Many thanks to Mike Aldrich.</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7698349575381188724.post-23186237052517375542008-10-11T06:16:00.000-07:002008-10-11T06:52:29.345-07:00You judge for yourself - are the JA "mainstream"?<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">Following pressure from me to include an edit on the wikipedia </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Army"><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">article about the JA</span> </span></span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">that acknowledged that the JA is regarded by some as a cult, John replaced one I had put about the CIC, setting that allegation against an academic article that gives the impression that at the same time, others regard them now as mainstream. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">John wrote: </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">"Despite the entry of the Jesus Army into the charismatic mainstream</span><a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Army#cite_note-17"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">[18]</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">, the church continued to attract a range of views</span><a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Army#cite_note-18"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">[19]</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"> and anti-cult groups like the </span><a title="Cult Information Centre" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Information_Centre"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">Cult Information Centre</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">, </span><a title="Family Action Information Resource" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Action_Information_Resource"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">FAIR</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"> and </span><a title="Reachout Trust" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reachout_Trust"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">Reachout Trust</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"> still included the Jesus Army on their lists.[</span><a title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">citation needed</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">]"</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">But having put it, in order to nullify my claim about the cult organisations, he is using wiki rules to push for the complete removal of the al<span style="font-family:arial;">legation from the article.</span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"> I am pretty sure the paragraph will disappear any minute now.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">We discussed this </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_Army#How_is_the_extent_of_a_group.27s_entry_into_the_.22mainstream.22_to_be_measured.3F"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">here</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">.</span> On the issue of the "citation needed" to back the allegation about the JA's cultism, </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_Army#range_of_views_-_citation_needed"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;color:#3333ff;">here is what was said</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">My feeling, as you can see from the discussion, is that wikipedia rules are being used to suppress the truth, rather than to document it. I am not sure I agree with John Campbell's interpretation of rules of evidence, but he is clearly not going to let this go, and anything I add to the article will just be "reverted" anyway. It is John's full time job responding to people like me. I don't have the time or inclination to fight this endlessly.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:130%;">By leaving these links here I want to leave it to you, the reader, to decide whether the JA are just grasping at whatever straw will allow them to suppress the fact that they are regarded by a lot of people as a cult and are not, as they would have us believe, now just part of the Christian mainstream.</span>Peter Eveleighhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06541919904534991708noreply@blogger.com0