Sunday, 16 February 2014

BBC employee H C Harwood (from the misleading 'faith that serves' doc.)


  1. So this Harwood guy. Was he allowed to have a hi-fi at home to enjoy the fruits of his labours and ingenuity?

    Why haven't PBCC members invented anything for the last 40 years?

  2. There are so many people with great talent that are trapped in this group which does not allow anyone to seek a university degree. Such a shameful waste of God given talent.

    1. Are these the liars, crooks and charlatans that are mentioned on another page or are you talking about a different group?? The people who all drive people carriers, drive at 60mph in a built up area and have a permanent hang over??
      Makes me wonder what I can believe on here!!! LOL

    2. Gordon Bennett.... A good point.. I think you will find that most people on this blog will admit that there are many decent folk in this group; indeed, many who comment here have families trapped inside. I think you will find that the hyperbole, regarding excessive behaviour, has come about because of the hypocrisy and worst excesses of the enforcers and dominant factions within the group. Incidentally, the possession of great talent, and not being able to express it, is not exclusive to behaving in a peculiar, or ill considered way, under the influence (as it were) of a corrupt leadership. Just to give you one example; most of the Brethren (now PBCC) were teetotal before former leader, Taylor Jnr, enforced consumption of strong spirit onto the flock. Ordinary folk, in the ranks, who resisted were, in extreme cases, thrown out; others were bullied and teased into starting a drinking habit (talented individuals, they may have been). Unfortunately, there are enough examples of the sanctimonious, hypocritical, enforcers, not to mention those now, sadly, alcohol dependant, to dominate the comments and more satirical (exaggerated) comments. Perhaps there should be a disclaimer on each one as in..."trapped, decent folk excluded from this comment". However, I think this is a given with most contributors who comment on this blog.


    3. Dear Mr, Mrs, Miss or Master notapublicbenefit (not too sure what gender you are so no offence intended).
      Thank you for clarifying this point - I think that I understand satire fairly well. Basically what you are saying is that the vast majority of the comments on this blog are deliberately exaggerated and excessive to the point of being ridiculous in order to draw out a reaction. I had suspected as much but thank you for confirming my suspicions. This makes it much clearer for any innocent passer by who stumbles on this blog by mistake.
      Your example is very interesting and not one that I can personally comment on as I have never witnessed such behaviour.

    4. Dear Gordon Bennett..I am sorry but I did not say that the vast majority of comments on this blog are deliberately exaggerated etc etc. I was trying to make the point that it is, perhaps, a minority, but an important minority - the most aggressive, the most vocal, and the publicists who are likely to be the worst offenders of ill considered behaviour and the enforcement of the PBCC code upon others. Perhaps this blog could be seen as a sort of weekly, or whatever, since it contains some serious theological debate, heartfelt and sad experiences, with some "cartoons" and lampooning, not to mention a few jokes and the odd limerick. I suspect the "innocent passer by" will draw their own conclusions and will not need you or I, or anyone else, to guide them; many of us were innocent passers by, at some point. You have to accept that there have been court cases of dangerous driving by PBCC members, and for other offences; this gives rise to comment, mainly because of the so-called "purity" of the Ex. Brethren (PBCC). Sometimes, rightly or wrongly, that, which is seen as hypocrisy, is dealt with through the use of hyperbole; that is the way of the world. I believe the PBCC are also guilty of an exaggerated narrative in their drive for publicity in the need to continuously prove public benefit.


    5. Thank you for your reply Mr/Mrs etc notapublicbenefit - your allusion to this blog being "weakly" is very appropriate and thoroughly understandable.
      I would accept that there have been court cases as you say. No one claims to be 100% pure, I certainly don't but I am seeking to improve, I am seeking to live my life in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and please Jesus my Saviour. I have failed many times and have often been thankful for his grace and love in granting me forgiveness.
      The Brethren do not claim to be perfectly pure, that is a statement which is often said on this blog about them, by others. I have certainly never met anyone who claims to be perfect in this way!!!!!
      I will just say in closing - thank you for your sensible reply.

    6. Mr GB, Ive just read your comments and was quite surprised by this exchange and response.

      Mr #notapublicbenefit says “Perhaps this blog could be seen as a sort of weekly, or whatever,”

      Mr GB says “Mr/Mrs etc notapublicbenefit - your allusion to this blog being "weakly" is very appropriate and thoroughly understandable.”

      Now Mr GB, I assume your comment is tongue in cheek and a spoof, or are you being provocative, for Mr NPB does not give any allusion to anything of the sort, he uses a completely different word !, please clarify ?

      Mr GB, You say “the Brethren do not claim to be perfectly pure” yet would you agree that all their actions indicate the Brethren think they are superior to other Christians ?

      Otherwise, what is the point of the “Eating Ministry” where JT Junior said the Brethren would be “contaminated and unclean” by eating and drinking with those outside the Brethren in the world, which be default includes Christians outside the Brethren.

      Otherwise, why does Bruce Hales claim that speaking to worldlies outside “brings a sense of defilement”

      Otherwise, why did JT Junior teach “1968 You cannot come into the assembly from an unclean place. The assembly must be protected. 112, 12, 113, 59”

      Mr GB please can you clarify



  3. The more I am told of Brethren’s achievements of the past, admirable as some of them truly were, including some really major ones that the present Brethren seem not to know about, the more I realise how far they have fallen.

    Where now are the learned Brentons, the wise and perceptive Tregelles, the brilliant Widdowsons, the heroic and noble Pensons, and a host of other great Brethren reformers, philanthropists, teachers, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, scientists, architects, engineers, musicians, missionaries, historians and linguists? The Brethren now have to scratch around in the archives of a distant past to find achievements they can boast about.

    They remind me of the Islamic world, which was once the great repository and custodian of all the most important learning and knowledge in existence, far ahead of the Western world in their culture and development. They put great value on scholarship, and their scholars kept alive and transmitted to the West the wisdom and writings of the ancients, but as a result of religious fundamentalism they fell into steep decline and are now immersed in ignorance, prejudice, folly, inhumanity and the deprivations that come with it. If you look at the Arab world in its present state, you would never imagine how much we owe them. So it is with the Brethren.

    When your light becomes darkness, how great the darkness!

    1. Exactly Ian - how great the darkness!!
      Were you ever in the Brethren??

    2. Yes, Gordon, I was brought up among the Exclusives. From memory, they were a pretty genuine church in the 1940s and 1950s, a bit eccentric, a bit self-centred, mistaken about many things, but mainly benign and beneficial, supportive of their members and harmless to everyone else. It was during the 1960s that they gradually changed into something completely different, something that would be better not existing at all. I was thrown out in 1969 for disagreeing with Jim Taylor’s decisions and his ministry. I thought he was a total fraud. It was traumatic at the time, but it is one of the best things that ever happened to me.

    3. Ian,
      How interesting! were you in one of those tiny meetings in Scotland and a fervent follower of Stanley Mac?
      What happened after 1969 - did you carry on having meetings or did it all just fall apart and everyone drift off on their own path?

    4. Gordon B

      Are you a current member of the Exclusive Brethren, or new name PBCC ?
      Were you once a member but still support them, even after being withdrawn from and being told you have walked away from the light ?

      I ask these questions because you appear to know the Brethren intimately, referring to “tiny meetings in Scotland” and “Stanley Mac”

      Your last question to Ian is very intriguing, can I ask you why you think Christian assembly/gathering might “fall apart and everyone drift off on their own path” if persons leave the Brethren ?


    5. Gordon,

      Thank you for your interest. I liked Stanley McCallum, but as with every ministering brother I tended to assess what he said on its own merits, not on the basis of who said it. I don’t believe there has ever been any minister of whom it can safely be said, “The Lord would not let his servant fail.” If you look at the servants of God mentioned in the scriptures, nearly all of them failed at some stage, many of them very badly.

      In 1969 there was no major schism, but the larger exodus in 1970 carried on and still exists, but has fragmented into several groups all in a state of mutual excommunication. Most of them still think they are so correct that is it sinful to disagree with them, so disagreements result in schisms. That belief is a legacy that can be traced all the way back to JND. The resulting fragments are aware of their numerical weakness and console themselves by saying it is a day of small things.

      I don’t know if you realise that the Hales Brethren are also only a tiny fragment of the Brethren movement, perhaps only about 2 per cent of the total. Most of the Hales Brethren seem to be under the impression that they represent some sort of mainstream part of the Brethren movement, even to the extent of calling themselves THE Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. It is a bit reminiscent of the children of Siam (now known as Thailand) who used to think Siam was the biggest country in the world.

  4. It does appear, sadly, that the only things that they are able to boast about in recent - the last 20 - years are mainly about wealth such as giving away surplus land.

  5. How ironic that this bloke invented something a lot of people got chucked out for later on, yet he is being praised here!

  6. This is from the folk who invented "hypocrisy" and might be the OED definition in the next edition. Imagine trying to get a job at the BBC (channel of filth) post c 1960. Also, there doesn't seem to be any information on whether these folk continued as adherents of the developing cult. I wonder if the PBCC propaganda department have researched descendants or sought their permission to use these names ?


    1. But remember, #npb, any descendants who are exEB or nonEB do not for all Brethren intents and purposes exist - such persons are "dead while living". So in HEB/PBCC minds, there is no need to consult anyone outside their little group, nor to bother too much with truth-telling to the 'Egyptians'.

      Excl Breth ability for self-deceit is mind-boggling; their pride and arrogance and cultish insularity leads to a complete lack of social intuition, grace or etiquette. They haven't a clue how to act with integrity, and when their error is pointed out to them they react with hatred (see Watalotatosh's reactions on this very blog - those who disagree with him/her are immediately called "obnoxious" etc.)

    2. Nottachurch, I think the phenomenon of self-deception that you mention is much more common and much more important than is generally realised. The phenomenon has been studied extensively by psychologists in the last few years, and they have shown that many people have quite an amazing capacity for self-deception. It could be the explanation for a lot of the bizarre statements that come from Brethren and similar groups.

      No one is particularly puzzled when people tell plausible lies of the sort that might pass for truth, but when they tell lots of blatant, obvious lies, ruining their reputation in the process, it becomes mind-boggling and difficult to understand, because it seems so self-defeating and irrational. Many observers have expressed astonishment and bewilderment at this practice.

      Maybe the explanation is that they don’t really think they are lying. Maybe they have a great capacity for self-deception, and then they attempt to deceive others. If so, maybe they are not as guilty of calculated, deliberate deception as they appear to be.

    3. Mind-boggling it is.
      Were you referring to the phenomenon of self-deception in Brother Rev's comments or Nottachurch's? We should bear in mind, whilst worldly psychologists are expects on many causes of clinical depression / pattens of thought process etc, they really don't have a clue about moral disorders or constitutional defects. It's not to say they don't have a role to play, but frankly, when it comes to moral judgement, they are found very very lacking.

      Frank Lee

    4. I was referring to Brethren leaders and the possible role of self-deception in explaining why they give the appearance of telling lots of obvious, blatant lies, when most people would either tell the truth or only tell lies that might pass for the truth. I suggested that part of the explanation may be that they are themselves the victims of deception, possibly willing victims, and so they either believe or half-believe the things they say, even when to most observers they look like deliberate, calculated lies.

      The alternative explanation would be that they do actually tell lots of deliberate, calculated lies, but I am reluctant to accept this explanation when psychological research has provided a less damning explanation.

  7. My dear Nottachurch - thank you for your comments which are so carefully weighted.
    The first paragraph is with due respect from my own experience complete bunk which is regurgitated on this blog often but not to be believed. If your family does treat you like that then I would take it up with them.
    The second paragraph is rather self-destructing may I say!!!!
    I have also tried to recall but I don't remember speaking to any Egyptians lately, plenty of Polish and Turks, even a few Scottish - all on a daily basis, thank you for telling me to lie to them though, I am sure that will go a long way (not)
    On a serious note - no one thinks that you are obnoxious or anything like that. Jesus came to save all - so have you got peace with him? only you know.

    1. Mr GB,

      Your choice of name is as interesting and revealing as Leonardo J Octavianus

      Leonardo J Octavianus
      Augustus was the founder of the Roman Empire and its first Emperor, ruling from 27 BC until his death in 14 AD. At birth he was named Gaius Octavius after his biological father. Historians typically refer to him simply as Octavius (or Octavian) between his birth in 63 until his posthumous adoption by Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Upon his adoption by Caesar, he took Caesar's name and become Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus in accordance with Roman adoption naming standards. Though he quickly dropped "Octavianus" from his name and his contemporaries referred to him as "Caesar" during this period, historians refer to him as Octavian between 44 BC and 27 BC. The Roman rulers were very cruel, believing in slavery, torture and indiscriminate killing. The Romans did not invent crucifixion, but they used it extensively to terrorize their subjects. It was into the time of the Roman Empire that Jesus was born. Caesar Augustus worshiped the pagan Roman gods, but even worse, he allowed himself to be worshiped as a living god

      Gordon Bennett
      The expletive Gordon Bennett appears to be a minced oath. It is a version of Gor blimey, which is itself a euphemistic version of God blind me. That, combined with Bennett's famously outrageous lifestyle and newsworthy stunts, is sufficient to explain why his name was picked out.

      One Loaf

  8. G.B... I think you are throwing salt into wounds. Whereas there may be clandestine activity among some who are in, and out of, the PBCC (purely on terms dictated by the "in" family) most do not have any contact at all and have now lost the will to even try. Are you suggesting that folk are spreading misinformation when they say they have not seen their families for years, or even decades? Taking it up with them might not be an option! I think that teasing folk about this issue is peddling in human sadness and shows a lack of compassion; a trait the CC the recognised.


  9. In the next edition:

    Invented office furniture in the 1960s. So successful was he that in the early 21st century he had become one of Australia's richest men! What is good about this is, unlike the fantabulous Brethren praised so far, you yourself can actually become a furniture salesman without going to university (or working for some worldly organisation like the BBC, or specialising in lubricants) and say "I have the same occupation as the one and only Man of God!" (but you may be puzzled why you don't make the same amount of money though!)

    What is ironic is one of his predecessors specialised at working without drawers while BDH is heavily into drawers.

    And is it any co-incidence that the Brethren pimp who lent JTJr his wife was the specialist in lubricants? Ah, these great men!