Loading...

Tuesday, 24 December 2013

Do the Hales exclusive brethren now rebranded The Plymouth brethren Christian church wish to retain separation or charitable status?

It would seem to any sensible person that the ridiculous and unChristian rule of separation is mutually exclusive with both Charitable status and public benefit.

Ought the HEB/PBCC to be seriously addressing this fanatically tyrannical rule which has destroyed so many families and is causing both Her Majesty's Government and the general public to view this toxic cult with such disdain?

1 comment:

  1. Abandoning separation or losing charitable status? If these were the only two options for the HEB leadership, their decision would be extremely difficult. Either option would put the leadership at risk.

    Without Brethren-style separation the membership would easily discover alternative cultures and would soon find out that their sect is only one among tens of thousands that profess to be Christian, and that its teachings are less credible, less scriptural, less rational, less moral and less beneficial than most. And without Brethren-style separation it would be much less traumatic for members to leave. The HEB could gradually die out by a process of attrition.

    On the other hand, without charitable status the whole enterprise would be much less profitable and therefore much less attractive to those who are thoroughly impregnated with the business ethos. Either option could put at risk the survival of HEBism in its present form. Many of the business owners might decide their businesses can do better if run independently without having to pay regular tribute to UBT or Brethren Trusts and without being obliged to buy any of their goods or services from Brethren-controlled sources.

    But maybe these are not the only two options. Searching for a compromise is bound to be considered, though it would more probably be called a gesture of goodwill. Compromise is a Bad Word. Continued delaying tactics are another distinct possibility. The longer the EB negotiators can delay, the greater their hope that some game-changing event might intervene. Maybe they still hope that Charity law might be changed; or they might eventually persuade everyone that they are genuinely charitable; William Shawcross might be converted to HEBism; a nuclear World War might break out; a miracle might be granted; the opposers might be exterminated, the Rapture might arrive; JGG might hatch a brilliant new idea on how to get out of the impasse; or none of the above.

    ReplyDelete