This is a place for those interested in the Hales exclusive brethren cult who actively destroy families, castrate Gays, avoid paying taxes, cause suicide and murder and are told by leader Bruce D Hales to develop an utter hatred of the world!
I have spoken to some Hales EB and from waht I am hearing there is still a flow of rhetoric along these lines..."We have won"."The CC always knew that they were wrong"."The CC were up against God Himself"."Our Brother has helped us defeat Satan".The CC were driven by Satan, but God has triumphed over evil".Not a single mention of any conditions.Eddie
My HEB contact confirmed all the above too, yesterday over drinkies at ours (non-physical separation, lol).His local Breth are also harping on the theme of, "The CC decision is a result of our brother [BDH] labouring night and day; it is the fruit of his efforts for the saints."Still no sign of the 55-page decision being disseminated to HEB rank & file in my contact's UK locality.
The phrase quoted by Laurie’s correspondent, “we’ve been told to ask no questions,” has cropped up in various forms now from different Brethren sources. It is an unhealthy sign. It suggests that the leadership don’t want to be asked about the changes they have had to promise, because then they would either have to admit that they have radically contradicted their own past ministry or else they would have to lie, with the risk of being found out later. It suggests that the leadership would prefer to cover the whole agreement with a layer of fudge topped with glitter, and not look at it too closely. It suggests dishonesty.
Ask no questions, tell no lies, I saw a policeman doing-up his fl.......s :)
The C1AD Greek of the PBCC’s charter verse, 2 Timothy 2:19, requires Christian believers to withdraw from ‘adikia’. ‘Adikia’ means illegal and unjust acts - what the Bible generally refers to as unrighteousness and which is translated as ‘iniquity’ in the New Translation of the New Testament by J N Darby: “Yet the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, The Lord knows those that are his; and, Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from [adikia] iniquity.”The Schedule 2 ‘Faith in Practice’ section on pages 47-52 of the full Charity Commission decision document demonstrates in some detail that the Preston Down Trust of the PBCC has now committed publicly to withdraw from illegal and unjust acts. In my view, this represents a welcome change of direction for the PBCC which will be monitored by the English Charity Commission and many others. Brethren leaders and members will not be in tune with the requirements of the document they’ve signed if they continue unjustly or illegally to marginalise as ‘evil’, in a blanket fashion, all former brethren, neighbours and ordinary members of the public. This surely means that they must now be addressing the way they have talked about people since the 1960s, disavowing the disturbing epithets they have used to describe non-Brethren people and discarding their policy of not associating nor eating or drinking with non-members.This all requires a substantial adjustment on their part and it will take time to achieve these changes. It’s essential that all members of the PBCC read the Charity Commission’s document for themselves so that they can begin to implement a way of life that acts legally and justly in all circumstances. If their leaders don’t help them achieve this, they should appoint new elders who are prepared to behave “openly, honestly and fairly” (page 51).
Joan - while I would like to believe that change is possible with this group, nothing in the 30 + years that I was a part of the Hales Exclusive Brethren and ++ years since I left would lead me to believe that they will change anything. I have no doubt in my mind that they will do the minimum possible to continue to have tax free dollars and if their feet are not held to the fire, they won't even do the minimum.
Joan is right about the Greek word "adikia". The problem is the interpretation put by the EB on the word "iniquity". A better word would be "unrighteousness" and Darby does at least give this as an alternative footnote reading in his French Bible (according to my 1960 version).
2 questions:- have the Peebs actually signed the document - all we have ever seen is an unsigned draft?- if the rank and file are not given a copy of the document how can they be expected to adhere to the contents?Personally I don't think they will sign it or adhere to it.Skeptic
I think the meeting room trusts will all sign up to it, but then find excuses for not adhering to it. For instance, they might blame the individual members for not adhering to it, and say the trustees can’t force them. It would be a gross deception, but difficult to prove.
They signed it last week, otherwise they would not get their tax relief. Adhering to the terms is an other matter,
It is totally the responsibility of the Charity Commission to follow through on their decision. Rank and file aren't going to be told, and even if it was read out to them, they won't understand or believe it. Loook how the proof about JTjnr was ignored by the gullible.
Note the use of the word 'explicit' by William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission when he said:"I am pleased that the PDT has agreed to adopt a new governing document and am confident that the organisation now qualifies for charitable status. This was a complex and sensitive case, which involved strong views and feelings on both sides of the argument. I am grateful to all those who shared information with us, and for their patience in awaiting today's decision.I hope that the organisation's new explicit focus on compassion and forgiveness will help allay the concerns of people who remain uncomfortable with some of the practices of the PBCC."Reported on the Charity Commission's web site on January 9 2014
I note that the PBCC website has a press release from them that says the Charity Commission decision is for the Charity Commission. What a load of rubbish! The full decision is for the public, particularly as the Charity Commission is a government body which handles public money and public benefit, so it is in effect answerable to the public who elected the government and of course, also to act within the laws and regulations surrounding its policies. The public need to be certain, by having full access to the decisions of any Charity Commission, that they have made a thoroughly searched out decision on any matter. It is clear from this statement by the PBCC that they do not wish their members to see or know about the decision details. This is once again, controlling information to control their "flock", which is not in the spirit of the changes they agreed with the Charity Commission to make.
The PBCC deny that the CC document is hidden from their members. I imagine, therefore, that they will have no problem with posting a link on their own website to the full document.
"Charity is no substitute for justice withheld."Saint Augustine