Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
21
ARTICLES
THE RADICAL KINGDOM OF THE
FELLOWSHIP1
JESUS
Steven J. Hunt
While there exist
fairly
well-documented accounts of charismatic intentional communities in the
USA,
on either side of the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide,2
considerably
less is known of those com- munities which are to be found in
Europe.
This
disparity
in documen- tation is partly because there are
simply relatively
few
European
charis- matic communities in existence. Moreover, those which do exist tend to be rather small
numerically, by way
of those committed to a distinct way
of Christian life.
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
1 This article was initially intended to be a joint contribution with Keith Newell, who was a fellow sociologist and member of the Jesus Fellowship. Keith was taken mortally
ill when speaking on the subject of the Jesus Fellowship at a conference of the Ilkley Group of Christian Sociologists in November 1997. This article is dedi- cated to his
memory.
Keith’s
unique
academic contribution is his work “Communitarianism and the Jesus
Fellowship,”
in Charismatic
ed.
Christianity: Sociological Perspectives, Stephen Hunt, Malcolm Hamilton, and Tony Walter (Basingstoke:
MacMillan, 1977), 120-139. I would also like to thank the Jesus Fellowship
for permitting me to stay in community, on several occasions, as an out- side observer.
2For instance; Peter Hocken, “Charismatic Communities,” in
Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed.
Stanley M. Burgess and Gary
B. McGee
New
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1988), 128.; Michael Harper, A
Way of Living (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1973); Mary Ann Jahr,”An Ecumenical Christian
Community: The Word of God, Ann Arbor, Michigan,” New Covenant 4 (February 1975): 4-8; David and Neta Jackson, Glimpses of Glory: Thirty Years in Community (Elgin, fl: Brethren Press, 1989); Theophane Rush, “Covenant Communities in the United States”, PNEUMA: The Journal
of the Society for Pentecostal Theology 16 (fall, 1994): 233-246.
1
22
Bugbrooke Community,
a charismatic collective which has remained in existence in Britain for some
thirty years.
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 mem- bership,
those such as New
Frontiers,
the Pioneers and the Ichthus Christian
fellowship.
While the Ichthus Christian
Fellowship
has been influenced
primarily by
the so-called Dominion
Theology largely
asso- ciated with Peter
Wagner
at Fuller
Theological Seminary
in
Pasadena, California,
New Frontiers and the Pioneers were
initially
at the fore- front of British Restorationism. In terms of theology and ecclesiastical structures the Jesus
Fellowship approximates
that of
Restorationism, while
constituting
a unique New Church strand in its own
right.
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 the- ology
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 com- munity
life.
Early Inspirations of the Fellowship
Initially,
the Jesus
Fellowship
was
inspired by
two sources. The first is the Church of the Redeemer,
Houston,
Texas established
by
the Episcopalian priest
Graham
Pulkingham.
In charismatic folklore the Redeemer church is
typically regarded
as the
earliest, and
certainly
the most noteworthy attempt
to create a thoroughgoing charismatic com- munity. Beginning
in 1965, five families and a number of
single
indi- viduals came
together
to form extended
family
units
which, in 1966, took on communal
identity. By
the
early 1970s, community
house- holds had been established in
Pulkingham’s parish and, subsequently, acted as a model for communitarian renewal in other charismatic churches in the USA. In 1972
Pulkingham
moved his household to Coventry, England,
and
inspired
other communal
projects
in the 1970s
2
23
such as the Fisherfolk,3 the Post Green
Community
in Dorset,4 and the Community
of Celebration in the Isle of Cumbrie, Scotland.5 While Pulkingham’s
model of
community living epitomized
the conviction that collective life would
provide
a deeper expression of the Christian faith and the charismatic
experience,
his
ministry
to the
poor inspired
a number of Christians in Britain committed to ministering to the
needy,6 the Jesus
Fellowship among
them.
There was a second fount of
inspiration
for the Jesus
Fellowship. While the
early
1960s charismatic movement
provided spiritual power for the
church,
the counter-culture of the
early
1970s established a focus for
evangelizing
out-reach, and
gave
an
impetus
for an
emergent way
of life
by largely separating
members from the secular world through
a new social
arrangement
based
upon “Kingdom
values.” In this
respect,
from the
very beginning,
the Jesus
Fellowship
mirrored developments
of the “Jesus Movement”
(or
the “Jesus
People”)
which sprung up
in the late 1960s in southern California, and from there spread
to other
regions
of the USA.7 Outside of the established denom- ination
boundaries,
such
community-based groups
as the Children of God
(now
“The
Family”)
and Gethsemane
Chapel
lacked the respectability
of other charismatic communities.
Frequently
labeled as “cults,”
those
groups
associated with the Jesus Movement tended to display
a curious mixture of
Right-wing
“fundamentalist”
values, strong
overtones of holiness
theology,
and the features of the 1960s counter culture
–
most
obviously
the
trappings
of
“hippie”
dress and rock music.8 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.
Largely
because of sectarian divisions, the
community-oriented North American Jesus Movement did not survive to the end of the decade.
Forgoing
communal life, the
larger groups
that
comprised
it either
joined
established Pentecostal
churches,
or
began
to create for- mal church
organizational
structures of their own.9 In
time,
the
3Graham Pulkingham and Michael Harper, Sound of Living Waters (London, England: Hodder, 1995).
4F. Lee and J. Hinton, Love is Our Home (London, England: Hodder, 1995)
5Mike Durran, The Wind at the Door (Eastbourne, England: Kingsway, 1986).
6Harper, A
New Way of Living; Graham Pulkingham, Gathered for the Power (London, England: Hodder, 1973); Graham Pulkingham, They Left
Their Nets (London, England: Hodder, 1973).
7David Foss and Richard Larkin, “‘From the Gates of Eden’ to the ‘Day of the Locus’: An Analysis of the Dissident Youth Movement of the 1960s and its Heir in the 1970s Post-Movement,” Groups, Theory and Society 3 (1976): 45-65.
8Robert Palms, The Jesus Kids (London, England: SCM Press, 1971).
9Richard Quedebeaux, The Charismatics II (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1982),
130.
3
24
original
adherents became
part
of the more
respectable
and
culturally- accommodating
churches in southern Califomia.10
By contrast,
in Britain,
the Jesus
Fellowship
has
endured,
in many ways in its form
–
original
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
adapt- ed for the
purpose
of
evangelizing
the
young, particularly
those which are to be found
living
on the streets of Britain’s towns and cities.
Stages of Development
Despite
the initial
inspirations
of the
Pulkingham community
and the North American Jesus Movement, the Jesus
Fellowship
had its own distinct
origins
and has
developed
in its own
right,
both as a charis- matic
community
and a powerful force of
evangelism. Through
vari- ous tracts and
publications
the
Fellowship
has
helpfully
identified dif- ferent
stages
of its own
fellowship, growth,
and evolution.
The first
stage
was between 1968-73 and
began
in
Bugbrooke,
a small, insignificant, “very English village”11
on the southern outskirts of Northampton, a large agricultural town situated
just
south-east of the midlands
region
of
England. Describing early events,
a Jesus Fellowship
leaflet
briefly
refers to
how,
in 1968 “a handful of
disap- pointed
Christians from
Bugbrooke Baptist Chapel gathered every Saturday night:
to find the secret of the
early
church.”12 The
pastor Noel Stanton, who still holds the
prominent leadership position
within the Jesus
Fellowship,
led a series of
prayer meetings
for revival. Having previously
mixed in Pentecostal circles and
having
received “baptism
in the
Spirit,”
Stanton had
attempted
to move the church more in a charismatic direction with the
support
of this faction of the con- gregation.l3
After
laying
claim to their own
spiritual baptism
and charismatic experience,
Stanton and his circle led a revival that
spread through
the village
and
outlying
areas so
rapidly
that it drew national media atten- tion.
Although
a rather
exaggerated
account of the
spread
of the Bugbrooke revival,
a British
newspaper
at the time commented:
lOp, Mauss and P. Peterson, “Les ‘Jesus Freaks; et le Retour la
Social
Respectable,”
I
Compass
21.3 (1974): 283-302.
Simon
Cooper and Mike Farrant, Fire in Our Hearts (Eastbourne, England: Kin sway, 1997), 21. ..
1 “The Fire Begins and Spreads,” Flame Leaflet no. 2.
13Cooper
and Farrant, Fire in Our Hearts, 21-30.
4
25
More than 200 people in a village of 800 have dramatically dedicated their
lives to Jesus. Nowhere else in Britain has experienced such a concentrat-
ed surge of religious fervor…. So much was written about the Jesus Freaks.
But the pattern here, though similar, is dramatically different. For this extra-
ordinary
revival slashes through all barriers of age and background.14
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 fellow- ship
entered the second state of
development
when a community was officially
established for its
growing membership. Bugbrooke’s Anglican rectory
was
purchased
and was
subsequently
renamed New Creation Hall, which at times was
affectionately
referred to as “the
city on the hill” or, alternatively, “Zion.” Several members of the
fellowship moved into the
building
which became the first centre of
community life. In 1976 a farm in Nether
Heyford, just
outside of
Northampton, was
bought
as a replacement for the
rectory
as the New Creation Hall and, by 1979,
several other
large
houses in the
surrounding villages were
purchased
to afford accommodation for some 350
people.
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.
Indeed,
the
developing
culture of the
Bugbrooke group
was,
in
part, deliberately
devised to attract and hold those from the counter-culture and others not
typically
reached
by the established churches. This
membership profile again
mirrored development
in the Jesus Movement in the USA, where
by far the larg- er faction of
membership
was drawn from the
“hippie”
counterculture and involved
young people
who had
previously indulged
in a life-style of drugs and rock music. 15 Almost all adherents were
verts and found collective life for the first time
–
entirely
new con-
one which
provided a new
system
of
morality
and sense of
security. 16
At the same time however,
the Jesus Movement also had its more
respectable
middle- class element of
already
committed Christians. So it was with the Bugbrooke community.
As the Jesus
Fellowship expanded
it attracted a middle-class
contingent,
often
professional people,
who
already
laid claim to
being spiritually baptized
charismatic Christians and who sought
a
greater
articulation of their faith
through
communal
living.
14The Daily Mail, 16 September 1973..
15`.God’s Gentle Irony. The Jesus People,” Eternity, August 1971.
l6Robert
Tiger
and Robert
Fox, “Mainlining
Jesus: The New
56.
Trip,” Society (February 1972):
5
26
This element included a number of
young
intellectual
evangelicals from Oxford
and,
to lesser, extent
Cambridge University.
The third
stage
in the
development
of the Jesus
Fellowship, between
1979-1986,
was a difficult and unstable
period.
At one
level, the economic and the
political
climate of the times ran counter to the broader
philosophy
of the
fellowship
with its
emphasis upon
commu- nitarianism and the
sharing
of
property.
These were the
years
of con- secutive 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,
pri- vatism and self-interest which was
hardly
the ideal climate for the ethic of
community living
and self-sacrifice. There was
however,
consider- ably
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 notori- ety
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, the
Evangelical
Alliance. 17 There
were, however,
more favorable
responses
and vehement defenses
by sympa- thetic Christians. As it was
put
in one Christian
magazine
in that
year;
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 appear to be as sound as a bell…. No other group of Christians has been at the brunt of so much criti- cism, lies, scandal, accusations, and suspicion as the Jesus Fellowship. On the other hand there are numerous Christians from house fellowships and other denominations who 8 have visited and gained a very favourable sion of the Jesus
impres-
Peoples
17The Evangelical Alliance is the largest umbrella organization for evangelical fel- lowships
in Britain, the bulk of which are charismatic in It is not
clear whether the Jesus great
persuasion. entirely Fellowship was, in fact, expelled.
The church’s side of the story was that it left as a result of persecution, Cooper and Farrant, Fire in Our Hearts,
226-230.
1 g”Bugbrooke – Cultic or Christlike?” Buzz Magazine, April 1986.
6
turned
those side members
by controversy period
27
the Jesus
Fellowship
since 1987 has been marked
by
two
key developments. evangelical wing mostly young
drawn from one
quently evolved.
to other churches
matic mainstream.
Initially, the Charismatic
As a result of
controversy
and
persecution,
more defensive and introverted to the extent that it became, even if temporarily, sectarian in nature.
Retreating
from secular
society
and
who
persecuted
it, the
fellowship increasingly designated
the out-
world as “Babylon.” This
turning
inward did unsettle
many
of the
who had to re-evaluate their commitment. A number
left,
but the
community
survived. In fact,
although
this
period
was marked
and external
persecution
it
was, paradoxically,
also a
of sustained
membership growth
and
increasing evangelizing activity
into urban areas.
The latest
stage
of the
fellowship
In that
year,
the Jesus
Army
was created as the
of the Jesus
Fellowship.
It has been
comprised
of
members either involved in
community life,
or
merely
of the other forms of
membership
which have subse-
The second
development
and the
entry
of the Jesus
Fellowship
into the charis-
it had
developed independently
from both
Renewal movement of the established denominations
Church)
was the
greater openness
preferences.
Andrew distinguishes
between
Community
the
and the
position
of women.19
Arguably,
However,
closely
associated with “R2,” as Nonetheless,
and was also
placed
outside of the rubric of the alternative
expression of neo-Pentecostalism in Britain
–
the
major
“streams” of Restorationism.
However,
in some
respects
the Jesus
Fellowship
has considerable
overlaps
with the latter.
Initially,
the
early
Restorationists shared the conviction that the renewal of the Church could
only
be achieved outside of the traditional denominational structures and were distinctive because of their
post-millenarian
Walker in his overview of Restorationism
“Restoration One”
(typified by Bryn
Jones’ Bradford
and “Restoration Two”
(identified
with New
Frontiers, Pioneers,
and Team
Spirit).
“Restoration Two” is the more liberal and successful in terms of church
members,
while “Restoration One” has proved
to be more conservative in
theology,
cultural
outlook,
and in church
practices
such as
shepherding
the Jesus
Fellowship
is closer to “Rl” in
many respects.
in terms of
forging
links with other
churches,
it is more
well as denominational charismatics.
prominent
leaders of
practically
British charismatic and Pentecostal scene have
spoken
at the large
pub- lic
meetings
of the Jesus
Fellowship,
and are
frequent
contributors to its
major publications
“Jesus
Life-style”
and “The Jesus Revolution Street
Paper.”
all the strands of the
l 9Andrew Walker, Restoring the Kingdom (London, England: Hodder, 1998), 41-50.
7
28
The assimilation
ments. These influences
churches and those
closely
some
extent, given
mainstream
has also meant
which
swept through Vineyard with them.21
Moreover,
this
into the charismatic
that the Jesus
Fellowship
has been influenced
by
the same
develop-
include features of worship identified with the late John Wimber’s
Vineyard organization20
and later an involvement with the so-called “Toronto
Blessing”
associated
more
accommodating
stance towards other Christian churches
has,
to
the Jesus
Fellowship
credibility, although
controversies still remain.
adaptation
the wider culture of the British charismatic
while at the same time
retaining
its distinct
characteristics,
for the
fellowship
in terms of accelerated
growth
of the mem-
has doubled at a time when
congregational growth
in the New Churches has stalled.
to
rewards bership
which
Kingdom Theology
lished.
Arguably, in
part,
be
put
key
New Creation”
provides
increasing respectability
and
Indeed,
the
rapidly
churches,
has
reaped
.
Nonetheless,
there is a
A full set of the
teachings
of the Jesus
Fellowship
has
yet
to be
pub-
the failure to do so after
thirty years
of existence
can,
down to a
greater emphasis upon
the
“experience”
of charismatic
living,
whether of the
Spirit
or the
community,
rather than the desire to establish clear
theological dogma.
comprehensive
set of
leaflets,
called “Flame
Leaflets,”
that cover the
doctrines and
practices.
In
addition,
the
publication “Living
in the
the clearest statement of
doctrines,
as taught to members. It originated in study notes for the
weekly agape
and com- prises study
books for new members.
Finally,
another source of infor- mation
indirectly outlining
doctrine is “Fire in Our Hearts”
–
a publi- cation
produced by
two of the Jesus
Fellowship’s leading
activists who
the
fellowship.22
Statement of Faith
published
in the official
“Jesus
Life-style”
reads:
detail the
history
of
The Jesus
Fellowship’s magazine
Community, upholds evangelical
The Jesus Fellowship Church, which includes the New Creation Christian
and practices orthodox Christian truth, being reformed,
and charismatic. It practices believer’s baptism and the New Testament
reality of Christ’s Church;
and
believing in Almighty God; Father, Son
Holy Spirit; in the full divinity, atoning death and bodily resurrec- tion of the Lord Jesus
Christ; in the Bible as God’s word, fully inspired by the Holy Spirit….
21Stephen Contemporary Religion
22Cooper
20Cooper and Farrant,
Fire in Our Hearts, 251-252.
Hunt, “The ‘Toronto Blessing’: A Rumour of Angels?” Journal
10.3
of
(1995): 257-271.
and Farrant, Fire in Our Hearts, 251-252.
8
29
Such statements
clearly put
the Jesus
Fellowship
well within the boundary
of Christian
orthodoxy. Simultaneously however, theologi- cal doctrines also
place
a great deal of
emphasis upon community
life as a natural outcome of the Christian
experience.
More
succinctly, there is the felt need to establish “an ‘Acts 2’
community.”23 Implicit here is not just the
priority
of
spiritual growth,
but of the
growth
of the Christian
community,
the two
being virtually synonymous.
Such a way of life is, for the Jesus
Fellowship,
the
missing
element of charismatic Christian
experience
and an ignored dimension of church
growth
strat- egy.24
Perceived as a counter-balance to the
over-emphasis
of tradi- tional
evangelicals
on
“personal relationship”
with
God,
this accent on Christian
community
is the “Radical Christian”
principle
of a radical Kingdom
since it involves the total
absorption
into the Christian faith.25
There is more to the
equation. Inspired by
similar
sources,
includ- ing
Em Baxter and Arthur Wallis,26 the Jesus
Fellowship
can
perhaps be said to have taken British Restorationism to its
logical
conclusion. The chief
motivating
consideration is the
attempt
to return to New Testament
principles,
not
only
in terms of
doctrine,
but as a
way
of life.27 From Restorationism is taken the idea that a truer form of Christianity
needs to be restored as
part
of an
eschatological vision,
a theological
view that tends towards
post-millennarianism;
the creation of the
Kingdom
on earth before the Second
Coming
of the Jesus Christ and in the
preparation
for that advent.28 In the
theology
of the Jesus Fellowship,
the
Kingdom
is constructed, at least
partly,
as an
earthly theocracy;
a “restoration of God’s
house,”
His
holy temple.29
For the Jesus
Fellowship,
the
greatest expression
of the desire to restore a pristine
Christianity
is for Christians to live in community, in “Zion.””Zion” denotes a
spirituality
in terms of the
“holy nation,”
a “royal priesthood”
that is also
expressed
in community
terms;
the com- ing together
in continuous
covenant,
a forsaking of the
outside,
secular world,
or
“Babylon.”3?
This
separation
from the world does not
sug- gest however,
a total
disengagement
from it. The call to
evangelism, means that the “lost” must be reached,
brought
to salvation and
ideally
23Cooper and Farrant, Fire in Our Hearts,
17.
24Cooper
and Farrant, Fire in Our Hearts, 17-18.
in the New Creation, Jesus Fellowship Church (1991).
261n the early stages of the movement, the Jesus
25Living
received visits from some of the leaders of the British Restorationist
Fellowship
movement, Cooper and Farrant,Fire in Our Hearts, 33-40
27Cooper
and Farrant, Fire in Our Hearts, 84.
28Walker, Restoring the Kingdom, 147-165
29Cooper
and Farrant, Fire in Our Hearts, 100.
30Cooper
and Farrant, Fire in Our Hearts, 85
9
30
encouraged
into
community
life
–
an
ideal, however,
which has been recently compromised by
new forms of
membership
that are outlined below.
Underpinning
this ideal of the NCCC is the
theology
of a “new cre- ation” in
spiritual
and communal life which is
regarded
as central to the
Kingdom
of God. Here the
spiritual family gives way
to the
family of the
Kingdom.
The “new
family”
is envisaged as a place of healing, fulfillment and
ministry,
a place on which the
power
of the
Holy Spirit dwells. At the same time, the act of Christian
regeneration brings
the individual into a
spiritual family
that
incorporates
and transcends the biological family.
The
envisaged
new
Kingdom family
consists of “mothers,”
“brothers” and
“sisters,”
and men older in age who
provide, among
other
things,
a
spiritual fathering
function aimed at
bringing emotional
healing
and
personal spiritual growth.
The NCCC
community
is seen as the
family
of God, and the famil- ial
relationships
are cohesive and
all-embracing.
In this
family, every- one is
equal
on the basis of
participating
in the
Kingdom,
for all are understood as having the
spiritual
status as sons and
daughters
of God. Consequently,
all are servants and overseers of one
another,
brother and sisters in the same
spiritual family.
It follows that those in com- munity
are
expected
to
lay
aside
personal
interests and
accept
a com- mon
purpose.
Hence,
domestic
arrangements
reflect the Jesus Fellowship’s understanding
of the basic values of the
kingdom
of God as a new
society
of
simplicity
and
equality. Practically speaking
all house holds conform to set
patterns
of
consumption
and activities to which members are
obliged
to
adapt.
Such a
life-style
is justified in terms of the
scriptural injunction
to forsake self so that
individuality melds with others and a new
identity
is found in
conjunction
with brothers and sisters. Personal
identity
is less
private
and
competitive, and more communal. Those in community
–
and indeed for members not in
community-
are also understood to assume a new
identity when
joining.
This new
identity
is indicated
by
the
adoption
of a new “virtue”
name,
where a persons first name is followed
by
that such as “Receptive,” “Intrepid”
or “Resolute” which are meant to characterize certain
personal,
and
essentially
Christian
qualities.
Community Life
and Structure
Today,
the NCCC is no
longer
limited to its communal centers of Bugbrooke
and its
locality.
There are now over 60
large
houses and 20 smaller ones which have been
purchased
all over Britain, so that the Jesus
Fellowship
has a presence in
many major
cities and towns. The fellowship
claims that there are over 800
people, including children,
10
31
living
in
community
in houses of various sizes modeled on
century
1
the life of the first Church.3
From six to 35
people
live in a house,
though
a few
larger proper- ties have
up
to 60 residents. The
pattern
of
community
life in the largest,
down to the smallest
residence,
is modeled
along
the same
prin- ciples
and
pattern.
Those
dwelling
in a community
house,
comprise
the household members,
along
with those who live outside but who are for- merly
attached to it.
Though
the household is the basic unit of the fel- lowship,
several households come
together
to form
congregations which are the focus for
worship
and
meetings, along
with non-residents and
any
member of the
public
who wish to attend.
Like
many
intentional
communities,
entrance into the
community life of the NCCC is gradual and follows a period of mutual
adaptation. Those committed Christians
seeking
a communal
existence, in much the same
way
as new converts off the
street, are afforded
a welcome, drawn into the
community
and offered
membership,
with a
personal decision
expected
within six months. Before
embarking
on full com- munity
life
however,
a member must be over the
age
of 21
years
old and is
expected
to
go through
a
probationary period
of two
years. 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.
New members,
especially
if they
opt
for
community life,
will have a
“shepherd”
who will oversee his/her
spiritual development.32 Shepherding,
in most
cases,
lasts for
usually
two or three
years,
or until the individual reaches what is
perceived
to be
spiritual maturity.33 Shepherding
is,
for the most
part,
conducted on a one to one, same
gen- der
basis,
with the
shepherded
and the
shepherd
almost
always sharing the same residence, and in the
larger houses,
the
dormitory
or bedroom. This controversial
practice
has been diluted or abandoned in
many
of Britain’s New Churches. The reason
why
it is retained
by
the NCCC is
probably practical,
as much as
theological,
in that new converts are often taken from the streets, are
unemployed,
alcohol or
drug abusers, or young people who have suffered emotional
damage
and have
grown up
in
dysfunctional
families. In this
way,
the
purpose
of a structure of authority, along
with mature adults and
peers
in the
household,
is cal- culated
by
the NCCC, to offer rehabilitation and
“re-parenting.”
3 1 “Zion, City of God,”
Flame Leaflet, no. 5.
32″Christian Community,” Flame Leaflet, no. 7.
33I discovered cases in which shepherding remained for up to twelve years.
11
32
constructive
is intended to remove
self-deception This kind of
but the Jesus
Fellowship
however,
is
part of
a wider
process.
life is regarded as a healing expe-
The
practice
of
shepherding,
For the Jesus
Fellowship community
rience in itself. In this context,
openness
to others means
listening
to
criticism and
spiritual guidance
from other
brethren,
and
and foster the
ability
to learn.
social interaction varies from one household to
another,
claims that it is uncoerced,
relaxed and normal because these are
components
activities.
Those who live in a NCCC house have a routine and
life-style
dif-
round of
Individuals
may istries of the and
support, either
through nesses. Church sisters
Certainly,
Community living brings often structured around church
the covenant evening
is for which of the
church,
unstructured, of the
everyday
or other activities. On
house Tuesday evening
is
agape,
Wednesday
ferent from those members of the Jesus
Fellowship
who live outside.
be absorbed into
community
life
by staffing
the min-
church and
being
available to others for
companionship
and are
expected
to work for the house’s common
purse
outside
employment,
or one of the
fellowship’s
busi-
households are
regarded
as a “family” of brothers and
and in the
household,
the
spiritual family
takes
precedence
over a member’s natural kin who
may or may
not be part of the
community.
at some
stage,
each member is expected to resolve
any
con- flict of
loyalties
between their ties of natural kin and the
fellowship.34
constant contact with fellow
residents,
meetings
Saturday evenings,
if there is not a main church
celebration, groups engage
in
worship
and exhortation.
meal eaten
together by
the household.
the
meetings
of the “servant
groups”
or “cells”35 of
there are in the
fellowship
some 200 nation-wide. As the core
the “cells” are constituted
by
some four to twelve
peo- ple,
adult members and their children as well as “new
friends,”
who are those on the
fringes
of the
membership.
the basis for the
“planting”
of new “cells” or even local
congregations
While their immediate function is
nurturing
fel-
and
praying, they
also
provide
the
training ground
and
ministry.
Generally speaking,
in most houses communal life is a spartan exis-
and
simple lifestyle.
There is no television or
radio,
and
rarely
be read. Most
possessions
are divested when
entering
for clothes and a few
personal
items. Married
divide and become
lowship, worshiping for future leaders
tence
newspapers
to the
community, except
When
they grow
too
large they
35The idea of the “cell” as the 34″Building
Church Households,” Flame Leaflet, no.16.
building block of church life was first devised in Britain
by Roger
Forster of the Ichthus Christian
Fellowship;
see
Anthony O’Sullivan, “Roger Forster and the Ichthus Christian Fellowship,” PNEUMA: The Pentecostal Theology 16 (fall 1992): 247-293.
12
33
couples
have more
possessions,
and a room to themselves with
sepa- rate rooms for children. Meals are taken
collectively
in the
dining room,
and the
lounge
is like a common room. Meal times are
fairly structured and
provide
an
important
basis of
fellowship
for
sharing news and
welcoming guests. Except
for the
bedrooms,
all areas of the house are common
space,
for
mingling
with other residents and those on the
fringes
of the Jesus
Fellowship
movement.
While the
community
is seen to be constituted
by equal
brothers and
sisters,
there remains both a strict hierarchical structure and strin- gent
division of
labor,
particularly along gender
lines. Like a monastic order,
the
organizational,
hierarchical structure is up and
running
when a member
joins
so that there is little internal
democracy.
At the
orga- nizational level there are, within
community,
different functions. In matters
concerning leadership, headship,
and
occupation,
for
example, elders and
“shepherds”
are the
principle
mediators of
authority
and providers
of
pastoral
roles. In
addition,
other
designated
roles such as “domestic sister”
(female
head of
household)
or
“leading
servant brother”
(a
leader of a “servant
group”)
all
signify
different ministries and elements in a fairly authoritarian structure.
Decision-making
is hierarchical, with a group of senior leaders set- ting
the direction for the whole
church,
which devolves down to deci- sion-making
at the
regional
and house-hold level with the
spiritual injunction
for all members to submit to and
obey
all those
placed
over them. It is, however, at least in
theory,
an
open hierarchy
with mem- bers
being permitted
to assume different ministries as spiritual maturi- ty
occurs and
community living experience
is gained.
Day
to day deci- sions and
disputes
are resolved in the
community house,
the house elders
having
to deal with local and internal
issues,
and their success in this
managerial
role
is, arguably,
one reason for the
community’s endurance.
.
Family, Marriage
and Gender Roles
Marriage
and the
family, along
with
specific gender
roles, are afforded a high priority. In the Jesus
Fellowship
the
marriage
relation- ship
becomes more
open
to
others,
in the sense that much of it is lived out in
conjunction
with the other house residents.
Marriage
is seen as a
ministering relationship
in which human warmth and Christian fel- lowship
is offered to others in the
house,
providing spiritual parenting for those who are
emotionally damaged. Marriage
is seen as a covenant
relationship
“first with Jesus then with one another and always
for the sake of
furthering ministry
and function within the
13
34
church
group.”36
Where
problems
in
child-rearing occur, support
and advice for the
parents
is on hand from fellow residents in the com- munity
house. For the children there is not a total
separation
from the outside world for the
young.
All children
go
to state school since there are not the resources to run an
independent school, although
this
type of schooling would remain an ideal.37 At the
age
of 18 years old those children of parents in the NCCC are
encouraged
to make
up
their minds whether or not to be committed, and if
not,
are
expected
to find their way
in the outside world.
There is
particular teaching concerning
males and
females,
each having
a specific social
support
and
spiritual
role in terms of
authority and a division of labor. Indicative of this
organizational
structure is the strong emphasis
on
headship
of male leaders at all levels and their role in heading up the
major
ministries within the church. Men and women are also
expected
to dress
differently.
Female dress is simple and mod- est with an
emphasis
on
non-sensuality.
For
instance, make-up
is not encouraged.
Gender roles are
strictly segregated
with men
expected
to work in the
community’s businesses, farms,
or outside
employment. While women
may
be involved in office work, their roles are
primari- ly
seen as domestic. The aim is to recreate
gender
identities as inter- preted
from
Scripture
with
parallel occupational patterns
so that the young
will
grow up,
so it is reasoned,
unspoiled by
the
temptations
of the secular world. This
goal
is
clearly stipulated
in a tract
produced by the
fellowship:
In today’s society the roles have become blurred. Men often wear the whilst women
pinny
go out to work! … But it’s not God’s perfect way. God wants men to be men.
Masculinity! And women to be women! Femininity!
It makes sense really. Call for women to accept the headship of
men. This is not a
strong, odly
question of equality but of social and spiritual role
8
Contact between males and females is limited. In a
reasonably sized house there will be female and male dormitories. If a male wish- es to “date” a female “sister,” she is
generally
first
approached by
a shepherd
or elder and
dating
occurs
only
with
expressed permission. Men and women also have their own
meetings,
with servant
groups
fre- quently single-sex.
In addition, males and females
regularly
have their own national
“praise days”
of
song
and celebration in which
gender identity
is
given
a
high profile.
In the case of the
males,
the “Men Alive”
meeting,
which is
usually
held in a
large
venue in one of Britain’s
major cities, frequently
attracts 600-700 males.
3?”Single for Jesus,” Flame Leaflet, no.9.
37Children, however, are prohibited by the Jesus Fellowship from playing com- petitive 38″Women in sports
at school.
the Church,” Flame Leaflet, no. 10.
14
35
Forms
of
Covenant
The idea of covenant as a distinctive form of commitment can be found in
many
forms of charismatic
community.39
It
might
best be cogently
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 the other forms of membership, and, if cho- sen,
to celibacy.
Baptism
for the new convert is followed the of covenant
–
by option making
a choice also
open
to those Christians
long-standing
in the faith.
Many prefer,
at first, to consider this
option
after nominal mem- bership.
Covenant ratifies the close commitment to the
fellowship
and brotherhood which
might already
be
experienced
in community
living. The
metaphor
of
marriage
is often used in teaching about the nature of covenant.
Making
covenant
signifies
commitment to the
community. The intention is that this commitment is for life and is meant to express the social
relationships
that derive from
being
“bom
again”
into a new family
as sons and
daughters
of God. Members of the Jesus
Fellowship who
give
an oath of covenant
pledge
to
keep
the
following
sevenfold commitment:
1) uphold
the
pure
biblical
faith, 2) be loyal
to the broth- erhood of the church,
3) consecrate
their whole
being
in service to God, 4)
love each other in social
equality, simplicity
and
righteousness, 5) accept suffering
for Christ’s sake and face
opposition
without retalia- tion, 6) accept
wisdom and
help
from other members of the church with mutual correction, confession of faults,
forgiveness
and
reconciliation, and
7)
unite with each other in full bond of
unity
in Christ with an intention that this should be the
life-long pledge.4o
Such covenant exists for those who want to live the Christian faith in a communal
setting
and who are dedicated to a total
discipleship. However, today only
a third of the Jesus
Fellowship’s
2,500 adherents actually
now do. It is
apparent
that the church has come to recognize ‘
that not all members find it appropriate to respond in the same
way,
so it provides four different
styles
of covenant
membership,
which entail different levels of commitment.
Style
1 covenant members have been baptized,
have undertaken covenant, and live in their own home.
They have their own
jobs
and
participate
in various non-church as well as church activities.
Style
2 covenant members resemble
style 1, except they
enter into a closer identification with the Jesus
Fellowship “king- dom” culture in terms of time, finances and services.
They possess
their
39Rush, “Covenant Communities in the United States,” 239-240. 40″A Covenant people,” Flame Leaflet, no. 12.
15
36
own homes but retain a life-style of
simplicity, discipleship
and shar- ing. Style
3 covenant members live in NCCC
households, sharing
all wealth, possessions
and income.
Style
4 covenant members resemble style
1 except that
they
live at a distance from a congregation and can- not
regularly participate
in meetings.41
Celibacy
is a distinct form of covenant. In
fact,
the Jesus Fellowship
is the
only
“New church” stream in Britain that advocates and
practices celibacy
for those felt called to it. A prospective celibate must be over 21
years
old and
initially
enters a
probationary year before
undertaking
the
commitment,
which is assumed to be for life. The decision is sealed with a vow and is taken as
seriously
as the ordi- nances of a monastic order.
The formal
justification
for
celibacy
is
biblical,
and is based
upon the Pauline
injunction
that the
single
life allows more dedication to Christ. It follows that the celibate has no other distractions,
allowing
a greater
dedication to
evangelism
and
freeing
a member for
ministry, particularly
in the unsocial hours that the Jesus
Army campaigning requires,
that
is, evening
missions in
inner-city
areas. For the Jesus Fellowship, celibacy
is “a gift of God for the
church, enabling
men and women to live undiluted and undistracted lives for Him.”42
Celibacy, however,
is not seen as superior to marriage. Both are
regarded
as high callings.
Neither does
celibacy
constitute a form of
segregation. Although
celibates have their own
meeting
for moral
support,
in the community context, couples
and celibates live side
by
side.
Kingdom
Economics
In
many ways
the NCCC is self-sufficient. A
community distribu- tion center at one of the
larger properties just
outside of Northampton has been
functioning
for several
years by way
of
providing
the
food,
cloth- ing
and other basic
daily
needs of the numerous households
through
a national
transportation
and distribution network. Goods are
initially bought
wholesale, and then distributed to each house as the weekly order is sent
in,
even
though
local
supermarket supplies might
be
cheaper
and of a better
quality.
In
addition,
the Jesus
Fellowship
has its own med- ical,
legal
and
architectural-design practices,
inasmuch as
they
are staffed
by
members of the
community
in their
professions,
but not liter- ally
owned
by
the
fellowship.43
Such
attempt
at
self-sufficiency
is
41 “A Covenant people,” Flame Leaflet, no. 12.
42«Single
for Jesus,” Flame Leaflet, no. 9; Jesus
Life-Style 24, (second quarter, 1993):
25.
43The medical practice is typical of this
in
development,
There are five doctors run- ning
a medical practice
Northampton. Some 50% of patients are members of the Jesus Fellowship, while the remainder are members of the public.
16
37
forged by
the
theological imperative
to be removed from the secular world and devised to
encourage
members into a new
way
of
living which welds
together every
area of life. This self-sufficient
way
of life includes the economic
aspects
of
community
life as well.
Indeed,
one of the
striking
features of the Jesus
Fellowship
is its economic
organi- zation.
In line with the basic
theology,
all members are deemed as equal in an economic sense. As we have
noted,
there is little
by way
of private property
for those who live in
community.
At a time when even reli- gious
life has been
increasingly
influenced
by
the dominant cultural ideology
of materialism and
worldly success,44
the Jesus
Fellowship has eschewed
worldly belongings
and seek what is perceived as a sim- ple
and more ethical form of economic life. It is not
surprising,
there- fore,
that the
“prosperity
doctrine,” espoused by many
Faith ministries originating
in the
USA,
is singled out for
particular
ridicule. Wealth is not
perceived
as a blessing, particularly for the
individual, and an offi- cial
publication
states that “the love of
money brings
selfishness in human hearts.”45 As far as the
fellowship
is concerned “wealth for Jesus” means to the benefit of the Christian
community.
As mentioned above,
the wealth
deposited
in the common
purse
includes members incomes and salaries.
Approximately
half of this wealth is used for the needs of the
community
itself and to fund
evangelizing
endeavor. The other half is re-invested in the
fellowship’s
businesses or in paying off bank loan’s for new business ventures.
In
many respects
the economic structure of the Jesus
Fellowship might
be said to be “socialist” in orientation and is most
readily
seen in the
propertyless community
and the
philosophy
of “each
according
to their need.”46 However, this
interpretation
has to be modified in
light of the
way
the Jesus
Fellowship
relates
economically
to the outside world. Indeed, if there is
anything
which is indicative of the
growth and success of the Jesus
Fellowship, apart
from its
membership growth,
then that is the size of its business
enterprises.
In this
respect the
key
aim is to extend the
practices
of brotherhood and sisterhood into
working
for the common
good
and in
providing
a non-alienating environment with sufficient work time
flexibility
as to allow members to take time off for
evangelism
and
church-planting.
.
44See, for example, Howard Perkin, The Enterprise
Culture in Historical Perspective:
Birth, Life, Death
–
and Resurrection?
(London, England: Routledge, 1992), 36-60;
Richard Roberts, “Religion in the
in the Thatcher
‘Enterprise Culture’: the British Experience
Era,” Social Compass 39.1 ( 1992): 15-33.
5″health Creation for Jesus,” Flame Leaflet, no. 21.
46Jesus Army Lifestyle, 25, Third Quarter, 1993, 8-9.
‘
17
38
In the
early stages,
those who
begun
the
Northampton fellowship lived from communal
earnings
and
savings.
Because of relocation and mismatch of skills of an
expanding membership,
it was
necessary
to develop
new means of
generating
income. There was also the need to support
the
growth
of
living accommodation,
as well as
providing
for those who were
unemployed
and less well off. As a result,
beginning in the mid-1970s,
financing through
business
enterprises,
all within a few miles of
Northampton,
became a priority.
The first means of wealth creation was the farm at Nether
Heyford which became both a focus for
community living,
and a means of eco- nomic
support.
The
fellowship
now has two farms and while some agricultural produce
is consumed in the
households, the rest is taken to market to be sold. There are also numerous orchards at New Creation Hall, along
with other fruit
crops
which are distributed
throughout
the local Jesus
Fellowship
communities. At times of
harvest,
members of the households in the
Northampton
area are
expected
to
give spare
time over to
working
on the farm
according
to the season of the
crop.
Since this first free-market venture, a number of business enter-
prises
have
developed, largely emerging
from the
light
industries need- ed to
keep
the NCCC
functioning
and
serving
the
community’s
needs. The most
important
are those businesses
specializing
in
building, plumbing
and vehicle
repair.
While the
building47
and
plumbing
busi- nesses
began
in order to
upkeep community dwellings,
the vehicle maintenance business was
initially
established as a garage to deal with repairs
to the
fellowship’s
fleet of buses used for
evangelizing
cru- sades,
as well the member’s
private
vehicles. In all of these business- es about half the work now conducted is to
satisfy
the demands of cus- tomers outside of the
community.
In
addition,
to these businesses
originating
with the needs of the NCCC,
others have been created based on
calculating
consumer demands in the outside world. Hence, the
opening
of the “House of Goodness” chain of health food
shops
which
begun
with its first outlet in 1976. Since then, there has been established retail outlets
selling jeans
and outdoor wear
shops.
All the businesses are owned and con- trolled
by
the
community through
the
Trustees,
to whom
they
are accountable. The Trustees is a group of senior members who monitor performance, spending
and use of
assets,
and look for new ventures. Business turnover now exceeds 12 million
pounds sterling per year.
Put
together,
there are some 250
people employed by
the Jesus Fellowship, by
far the
greater
number of which are members. The egalitarian
ethos is retained since all are
paid
500
pounds per
month
47The building firm is called Skaino Services – derived from the Greek in refer- ence to St.Paul’s tent making business which economic supported during his mission.
18
This income
39
position
in a business.
whatever their
type
of work or authoritative
is
placed directly
into the
community purse.
While there are
statutory holidays,
members are
expected
to
spend
this time evan-
As cemed, along context,
be
found,
it is calculated involves
training bilitation
especially
gelizing.
far as the economic dimension of the Jesus
Fellowship
is con-
there is a clear career
employment
structure within the
church,
with
training opportunities
and ethical wealth creation. In this
one of the
principal
considerations is in
developing
manual skills. While there are office
jobs,
and
scope
for
professional
work to
by
the Jesus
Fellowship
lower class male
youth
converts with vocational reha-
for those who have never known
employment.
Evangelism
diately gained ever,
for
mainstream
society through fellowship
absorb newcomers disturbing
as
that manual work
the Jesus
Fellowship
imme-
It took some
years,
how-
Fellowship
see
strong parallels In
Almost fanatical in its
proselytization,
a high profile in British cities.
the
community
to
develop
to the extent that it could
system- atically
set about its
goal
of
evangelizing
the
poor
and those outside of
the Jesus
Army. By
the mid
1970s,
the
felt
sufficiently strong enough
to undertake
evangelism
in urban
areas,
and households were felt
large
and secure
enough
to
from the streets who
might
be both disturbed and
a result of
drug
and alcohol abuse. The farm at Nether Heyford
is the most successful
example
of this
outreach, housing sev- eral
dozen, mainly
“underclass”
people.
In this
way
the Jesus
between itself and the Salvation
Army.
an article in its
magazine
it states as much when it
quotes
William Booth that “Those who
belong
to no-one else
belong
to us. “48
Declaring
a
significant “prophetic
lost
generation,” claiming families,
often
living
word” from the
Holy Spirit,
the
God’s will to “adopt the men and women from broken
Part of this endeavor includes the
Jesus
Fellowship
sees its mission as fulfilling
that
“young
on the
streets,
will find new birth in Jesus and be brought by
God into His
family.”49
idea of a “moral revolution.” Hence, a
strong
ethic of the
fellowship informs its stance
against drug abuse, abortion, promiscuity
and
crime, the call for the
strength
of
family life,
selflessness and
service,and
the
of a lost
young
“Generation X”
by
“Generation J”
(the
replacement “Jesus Generation.”50
48Jesus Lifestyle, 27, First Quarter, 1994, 3.
49Jesus Lifestyle, 27, First Quarter, 1994, 3.
50Another key element of
towns and cities evangelism
are the Jesus Army marches
through Britain’s larger
–
a strategy which takes much of its tone from dominion theology.
19
40
As an
evangelizing church,
the Jesus
Fellowship
runs the normal programs
of
any
other “New Church,”
alongside
those it has initiated on its own. There is evangelism
through
street work
(along
with col- orfully painted
double-decker
coaches), marquee campaigns,
local ini- tiatives, church-planting,
renewal weekends and “celebration rallies” (alternatively
referred to as “Praise
Days”).51 Many
of these “cele- bration” activities attract several thousand
people
and tend to be calcu- lated to appeal to the
contemporary
“rave”
culture, complete
with
light shows and rock music, of a
younger generation.
Such
strategies
can produce
contacts who are
subsequently
welcomed to visit the Nether Heyford
farm or drawn into a household for
follow-up evangelism
and absorption
into further church activities.
Future
Prospects
In the modem world intentional communities are
notoriously
short- lived,
with
only
a few of those established in the 1960s
surviving
into the 1990s. Such communes tend to create their own internal tensions and contradictions. Those with a clear
ideology
or spiritual orientation tend to survive
longer,52
but
frequently only
a generation. The
greatest visions and
aspirations
cannot
compensate
for the difficulties either generated by
the
community itself,
or in its
relationship
with the out- side world. The success of the Jesus
Fellowship
rests
partly upon unity of
purpose
and commitment which has overridden the internal conflict that has
destroyed
other communities.
Kingdom theology, concepts such as “Zion,” brotherhood, and “servant hearts” have bound
togeth- er members of the
community through
the difficult times. Clear struc- ture,
roles and
organization,
role
performance
and
leadership
have also provided
a viable
community
structure which has endured.
Another
key
to
persistence
has been
adaptability
to the outside world. 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 form
only
one-third of the church. It is in the development
of its four levels of covenant that the Jesus
Fellowship indicates its
willingness
to
adapt
to social
change.
There is the aware-
Christopher Coates, Diggers and Dreamers, 96-97: The Guide to of Cooperative Living (Winslow, England: Edge
Time, 1995).
52The annual dropout rate of baptized (non-covenant, non-community) members is 30%, but of established community members it is less than 10%. Thus, the
rate is the
greater
among styles of membership with fewer demands; the high profile Jesus Army
dropout
activities succeed in recruiting a somewhat transient population, in addi- tion to new members drawn from other churches and second generation members.
20
ing.53
It has
certainly munity relationship,
cal
bership, leaving
succession
of
leadership
living
munity living, gent upon
41
change
and it
may
be the case
if this trend continues it will
more radi-
living
of overall mem-
First,
the
problem
of the
has
grown
old or communities in the USA
ness that members’ life circumstances
that an alteration in
style
of membership
may prevent
some from leav-
introduced a new
dynamic
into the church/com-
and
presumably
dilute the
uniqueness.
It
may
be that the Jesus
Fellowship’s
element
–
materially egalitarian
but structured communal – will continue to involve a
decreasing proportion
it as just another strand of the New Church movement in Britain.
Two interrelated concerns still remain.
after the first
generation
died. Such was the case with
Pulkingham’s
and Britain where
poor leadership
led to the
disbanding
of community
in 1977.52
Second,
there is the matter of
establishing
aims and priorities
above and
beyond
the initial vision. It follows that while the Jesus
Fellowship
has been a success
story, particularly
in terms of com-
future success, indeed survival, will
probably
be contin-
the second
generation
since the founders are now middle- age.
If
sufficiently vibrant,
this
younger generation
will write the next
of the
story.
If the
fellowship
survives it will
undoubtedly
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 sectarian-
with
contemporary
will continue to
epitomize
Pentecostal life.
chapter remain
ism
incongruent Jesus
Fellowship Christian and
Pentecostalism. To
others,
the
the fullest
expression
of
Today,
53Julia Duin, “Where Have all the Christian Communities Gone?” Christianity
14 September 1992, 24-25.
21
