Jesus Army
Schroedingers Cat
Shipmate
in Epiphanies
OK, strap in. In the UK there has been a 2-part documentary about this cult, which opearted between 1980s and 2019 (I hadn't realised it was so late).
That was abusive in the extreme. Not just spiritual abusive, but sexually. over 500 claims of abuse were made. Some - very few in fact - resulted in convictions. I think 11 people were convicted, but many more were involved.
It is not a nice watch. In fact, it is deeply traumatic to watch, and to realise what sort of hell these people were put through.
But the question here is what can we in more traditional churches and faith groups learn? It is far too easy to say "Oh, but it was a cult, we are not like that." Which is of course a cop out. The JA started as a normal church. There is a lot within the JA that is also common in churches. And we know that abuse is not exactly uncommon in other church groups. Of all sorts.
How do we take the lessons to avoid abuse? Can we?
That was abusive in the extreme. Not just spiritual abusive, but sexually. over 500 claims of abuse were made. Some - very few in fact - resulted in convictions. I think 11 people were convicted, but many more were involved.
It is not a nice watch. In fact, it is deeply traumatic to watch, and to realise what sort of hell these people were put through.
But the question here is what can we in more traditional churches and faith groups learn? It is far too easy to say "Oh, but it was a cult, we are not like that." Which is of course a cop out. The JA started as a normal church. There is a lot within the JA that is also common in churches. And we know that abuse is not exactly uncommon in other church groups. Of all sorts.
How do we take the lessons to avoid abuse? Can we?
Comments
(Good topic otherwise.)
Doublethink, Admin
In the meantime, FWIW, I have some friends who knew people who were involved at 'Bugbrooke' as it was known then, in its early days.
It may have started out as a relatively 'normal' charismatic evangelical church but from what they told me things were pretty weird and wonky from very early on.
I've since met several people who were involved with the Jesus Army and one still describes it as the best years of his life. He wasn't aware of any abuse and thought the closeness of the fellowship was great.
He doesn't doubt that the abuse went on but didn't see any evidence of it himself.
As to how the rest of us can avoid such things developing in our settings, well, I think that almost any religious group of whatever flavour can become cultic given the right (or wrong) circumstances.
Controlling leadership is always a red flag in the first instance.
The Jesus Army were always something of an outlier as far as the rest of charismatic evangelicalism was concerned. It was eventually rehabilitated to some extent but on those occasions when I encountered Jesus Army folk on the streets or at inter-church gatherings they always struck me as particularly intense and cult-like.
I wouldn't describe the group I was in as a 'cult' but it did have some cultish tendencies at times. I always thought the Jesus Army was in a different league when it came to controlling leadership and unhealthy levels of intensity.
That's true in the sociological sense, but I think the practices show more of a continuity with the rest of the charismatic world. Dominant leaders are quite common, it's positively encouraged in the new apostolic ideal.
They were expelled from the BU in the mid-80s, the associated report might cast light on exactly how that worked internally (doesn't appear to be online).
That's interesting as, although such polity is long-established in British Baptist churches, it doesn't actually appear in the BU's governing "Declaration of Principle". However it might well have formed part of the church's Trusts, held by one of the BU's Trust Companies, although which actually dictate what can happen within the building rather than the congregation itself.
This may be helpful although I'm sure it's only partial reporting: https://www.jesusarmywatch.org.uk/scrapbook/ce/029.php
I can't say for certain if he was made worse by the involvement in the group, but I remember that it was an intense experience for him.
Poor chap, he wasn't in a good way.
Sure. The issue of course, is the extent to which this is taken.
From what I saw in my brief encounters with JA folk, they weren't doing anything that couldn't be found elsewhere within charismatic evangelicalism, but they'd ratcheted everything up a few notches.
Everyone avoided them for a while after they were booted out of the BU but they were gradually rehabilitated to some extent by various independent 'networks' - although warmth towards the JA was by no means universal. I knew a lot of people who had misgivings about them - and not everyone within what we might call the 'new apostolic' side of things went along with everything that went on in those settings.
It's the same elsewhere, of course.
I know some very un-Pentecostally Pentecostals, for instance.
I'm with @Doublethink, these things can happen in organisations of any form. Workplaces can be particularly toxic too, of course.
Do you remember which ones? I ask for two reasons; firstly it tends to confirm my previous point and secondly, ISTR reading that their parting of ways with the EA was down to a significant number of objections received from other organisations.
Yeah, I was thinking of the NAR rather than second/third wavers in the UK context - though the same applies.
Was going to say this, but far less succinctly. This is one of the reasons I dislike hierarchies so much. Give some people power over others, and sooner or later there will be abuse in some form or another. Cults are just some of the extreme examples.
Stuff like "never leave any adult alone with someone else's children, and make sure that the adults running the nursery aren't related to each other." In seminary we had an entire class on sexual ethics for pastors and how to avoid even the possibility of impropriety. Some of it might feel a bit prudish, but if you want to be careful, it's reasonable.
No system is foolproof but there are a lot of common sense preventative measures you can take.
Sure.
I remember being surprised when Bryn Jones of Covenant Ministries began reaching out to the JA at a time when others were giving them the cold shoulder - and that rather reinforces your point I think, @chrisstiles. Not that I'm aware of any sexual abuses or improprieties within that particular network, although it certainly fostered dominant leadership styles.
Further to this, and @Baptist Trainfan's post above, I note the Wikipedia entry has this in reference to their rejoining:
"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."
The source given is the May 1999 edition of Idea Magazine.
From what I can surmise, and I’m well within the blast radius of all this*, I think they were looking for a reason to boot them by the time they did, so Capone and tax evasion springs to mind.
*not going into details sorry
Yes but the JA was running (large) communal houses in remote locations where all children were billeted together and deliberately made to separate from their parents. So yes it’s common sense, but here we see how the JA was well over on the cult side, rather than the church side.
In other words they were booted out for getting rid of the safeguarding structures that were part and parcel of the tradition. Proper scrutiny by a congregation of the leadership and the balance of power of power that entails is a messy thing and open to abuse and attempts at bullying on both sides are common place. However, it is there to fetter power within the congregation and mean that the leadership cannot just do what it likes.
The dispensing of it should have been a major red flag.
It is likely that it is the issue that complaints were made to the BU in this case by church members who were not in harmony with what was going on. They were asking that their voice was heard in line with tradition or that it was acknowledged that this was not the tradition.
I think it's kind of a feedback loop where poor praxis is encouraged by predators who thrive in an environment of poor praxis.
I can imagine more "ordinary" looking churches where predation happens because of lax oversight or excessive trust in authority, for sure, but I think that - practically speaking - you can treat sexual abuse the same you treat infectious disease. There are certain patterns of behavior that encourage harm, and if you want to avoid this harm, best follow practices that discourage these patterns, or even make them impossible.
And be most wary indeed of those who insist on not following basic safety protocols.
Back then, it was more around their treatment / targeting of a vulnerable group. Many of whom needed more support and help than their offer of Jesus, communal living and meaningful work. The unease about their model of communal living, financial affairs and child-care arrangements came later.
@c52, The teaching about the evils of women wanting new kitchens is typical of the time (sadly). No one back then ever questioned a man’s need for a new car.
I agree with your comment "Back then, it was more around their treatment / targeting of a vulnerable group. Many of whom needed more support and help than their offer of Jesus, communal living and meaningful work".
Having watched part 2 of the programme yesterday, I found it somewhat unsatisfactory. A lot of time was spent on hearing the testimonies of a few members, I suppose the TV team felt that these were exemplars of the wider culture, which is fair enough. But we heard very little about the Fellowship/Army's business empire, nor of how Noel Stanton's influence was able to spread across 100 houses. We also got the impression that members were constantly involved in large-scale intense meetings, but these can't have occurred that often.
I don't think this message is inherently bad, and it may also be a necessary corrective, the problem lies in its selectivity
It struck me as similar in pacing to a lot of BBC Radio/NPR programmes - and reminded me of why I prefer to listen to specialist podcasts which can tackle issues in depth. The point about large-scale intense meetings is an interesting one, afaict from talking to people, these weren't that uncommon once they were fully into their communal phase - and certainly during the mid to late 90s through to maybe the 00s they were having multiple large scale meetings a week. One of the hallmarks of groups like these is that the meetings become a factor in being constantly 'mobilised' as a community.
The first wave of documentaries focused more on the business empire and culture / influence as well as their work with the homeless IRCC. There did seem to be alot of meetings. Reinforces the messaging whilst keeping people tired / occupied so less likely to wonder what exactly they've got themselves into. OTH, if all the income was paid into a common purse and you're living in a church house, leaving would be extremely difficult.
I have lived semi-communally but everyone did have their own space in a way that the Jesus Army didn't.
His wives must have been saints! He also forbade vacuum cleaners and his house could be very cold ideed.
I do read his poetry, but really, he does come over somewhat as an idiosyncratic MOS (miserable old scroat).
Apparently Thomas didn't support Plaid Cymru because it wasn't sufficiently nationalist (mind you there are folk today who'd say that).
But we're rather veering away from the Jesus Army ...
It was noticeable to me that the 'praise raves' took off around the same time as their recruitment did -- and from their point of view must have been a fortuitous solution to the problem of keeping a lot of young people occupied.
The praise raves were later IIRC. Although there was alot of emphasis on inviting your friends so they could meet Jesus as well, people then went back to their lives and were actively encouraged to join a good, local church so they stayed connected.
Jesus Army were all about joining them with a huge side order of because we're the only ones offering proper gospel truths.
I thought, in the programme, the contradiction between the ban on "unworldly" activities such as TV watching, and the "world-copying" raves, was brought out well. Whose idea were they?
Okay, the series seems to indicate they experienced a boost in recruitment around the mid to late 90s
The praise raves I remember were the ones in Littlehampton but the JA could have done them as well.
Yeah, they used to run them in warehouses and they cover them in the second episode.