Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>>I don't accept the premise of your NHS analogy. I >>regard all the supposed good done by the JA as being >>self-serving. John Campbell's editing of the section >>on Jesus Centres concedes quite happily that all the >>social outreach is intended only as a vehicle for >>evangelism. Frequently you hear challenged JA >>evangelists saying, "I am not a social worker". > >Of course they'd be correct to say that. The JA have >active involvement with people's social workers. I >remember one in particular who - although he didn't >agree with the JA ethos, had to accept that the >environment was benefitting his client. The same one >who has turned from being a persistent re-offending >criminal alcoholic to a gentle man who has settled >with a wife and two children. This is the same guy who >was pushed from pillar to post until the JA offered >him a roof to ensure adherence to his bail conditions >when other [christian and non-christian] organisations >had turned him down. > >> >>You might argue that evangelism is necessary. As an >>atheist, I would obviously disagree. But people who do >>think evangelism is important object to the fact that >>JA evangelism serves only JA interests. > >I agree and disagree. Sure, evangelism serves the JA >as in it has the potential to grow their numbers. >Equally however, I have met many people who may have >been evangelised by the JA but went on to join a local >church. Although I'm sure you'll disagree - the >primary focus is actually to bring people to God. > >>The JA does >>not recommend other churches (in fact Tom, you know as >>well as I do that the JA has contempt for non JA >>Christians and churches....Noel used to rant about the >>worldly churches with their woolly, wishy-washy >>effeminate members etc). > >Well, oddly there seems to be quite an active >involvement with other churches ranging from speakers >attending meetings, commentaries in the magazines, and >the whole multiply stream. I agree that I have heard >tale of the JA being far more insular but that was >before my time. > >>JA evangelism does not exist to bring people to God, >>primarily. It exists to bring people into committed >>relationship with the JA, and once poeple are in that >>relationship, it is very reluctant to let people go - >>even to other churches. > >I disagree. I know many people who have left - some go >on a less regular basis [like myself], others go to >local churches and others don't go to church at all. I >think it's a no-brainer that the JA would prefer to >keep people so sure, there may be a reluctance. The >fact is - I have lost many good friends and I suppose >I was reluctant to lose them having been so actively >involved in their lives. On the flip side however, I >would never criticise them for going to another church. > >Will just draw a line saying we'll just inevitably >disagree.
Choose Message Icon: None :-) Happy ;-) Wink :-D Joy :} Smirk <:-} Innocent ☮ Peace >:) Mischief B-) Shades <3 Heart |O Yawn <:P Sick >:-( Angry :~( Sad ? Question *!* Alert Thumbs Up Thumbs Down (!) Idea [Info] Info Oo. Talk [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.