Loading...

Friday, 7 March 2014

Hales does the ultimate back-flip, is he the ultimate church wrecker or the man of God?


From Wikipeebia today;http://wikipeebia.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=464

Bruce Hales has now done the ultimate back flip. He has thumbed his nose at an awful lot of people with his repugnant reversals over the past few years, but this latest one is the biggest bird he will ever 'flip' to those of us who have felt the cruel life-changing un-Christian injustice of this group. And thanks to FA we have the info. 

Separation is being phased out. Separation - the very foundation of their so called religious purity. The core issue. Separation- the greatest of issues or matters- which caused untold grief and loss for so many families. Thousands of them. I know- I witnessed it. 

In our household the memories of the separation issue were palpable. Even today - 54 years later. My mother wept for months - for years - until the day she died - over an edict that took her own family from her and then most of her own children as well. Separation -kept us from her for the remainder of our lives too. 

I don't know my mother. Or my father if I'm honest. I only knew them for 18 short years and it has dissolved into a fudge of the faintest memories today - over 40 years later. I never had an adult relationship with my parents and some siblings. A terrible thing - that never leaves your psyche. It dwells within you - especially when you see happy normal families around you and wonder about the cruel twist of fate dealt you by a man with strange and extreme ideas. 

I doubt Hales' new conviction will be evidenced by the burning of all ministry books on the subject however. And God knows that issue alone would see a huge chunk of books being made redundant. This is a ploy. A ruse. He is pulling the wool over the eyes of the Charity Commissioners. He is playing his bloody games again. Pretending to conform to their demands. But not for long I can assure you.

Now Peebs can eat with their worldly employees. How many people had their lives wrecked over that issue? Hundreds? Thousands? What a farce.
Why has this come about you ask? Well the CC document which seeks to bring the Peebs into line with decent humanitarian normal Christian practices - is now being disseminated and read by the Brethren - and they are making a (temporary?) attempt to meet its criteria. This must be repugnant to them as it breaks every key rule in their book. 

But Bruce Hales and his cohorts won't be entertaining the loss of vital Government revenue and exemptions - money being one of the most important things in the Hales raison d'ĂȘtre. You can separate a Hales from his religious principles - but never from his money!

One of these stipulations suggest they should be nicer to us. The people they threw out for a variety of reasons - none of which was worthy of depriving us of our families for the rest of our lives. Or their lives in my case - like so many others.

I believe this is a temporary ruse. A con on their parts. But as one person pointed out to me - if they reverse this rule - then go back to the status quo - the howls of protest from within and without the camp will force the CC to look a little more closely -again- at the dealings of this extremely dodgy group of people. You cannot do what they have done for over 50 years and then just reverse it. It doesn't work that way. It's cruel in the extreme - and unconscionable in context. 

We can thank the Peebs themselves for telling us this. That is one of the beauties of another Hales reversal - the introduction of the internet - again brought in by Hales to shore up business dealings and profitability. 

Apparently he is ramping up his business conferences again too - here and in Britain - to ensure that the latest business practices will help swell his financial skimming. The current downturn in economies must be worrying him. Which is easily fixed of course. You simply run another series of business meetings around the world which you charge the Brethren lots of money to attend ( they are probably compulsory) and things look up straight away for Hales and his mate Gadsden. 

But this reversal - is the cruelest blow of all to many of us - who have had our lives irrevocably changed because of it.


19 comments:

  1. "My mother wept for months - for years - until the day she died - over an edict that took her own family from her and then most of her own children as well. Separation -kept us from her for the remainder of our lives too."

    My mother wept for 51 years over the loss of her firstborn child - her son. On her death bed her face, calmed and relaxed with morphine to still the pain, grimaced when I mentioned his name as her anguish surfaced through the drug induced haze. He always said he could not have normal social relations with her until she "returned to the point of departure".

    This news shocks me to the core

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I expect people are shocked to hear that another of the Brethren’s so-called principles seems to have been ditched for financial reasons. It doesn’t surprise me quite so much, because I suspect it existed mainly for financial reasons. Separation is part of the machinery that controls people and holds the great money-making machine together.

      I am sure the top-rank enforcers of the last 50 years did not consciously follow that line of reasoning; they would rationalize by endlessly quoting 2 Timothy 2, and persuade themselves that it was a genuine matter of divine principle, but I have never thought 2 Timothy 2 was the real motivation, only the excuse. One reason to think so is that nearly all cultish groups practise separation from non-members, but they use different excuses. Many of them have never heard of 2 Timothy 2. The fact that the practice is so widespread among cults points to a common motivation, and it is certainly not 2 Timothy 2. In some cases it is the love of money, and in some cases it is the love of power.

      Delete
    2. Jill is right.

      While some will welcome the PBCC's new understanding that to treat non-members as unworthy table companions does not accord with a published commitment to deal with all people fairly, openly and honestly, the Exclusive Brethren in fellowship with Bruce D Hales still have mountains to climb if they are to gain public confidence that they are a mainstream church which acts for the public benefit.

      As far as I know, Bruce Hales, Garth Christie, Bruce Hazell and other senior elders have not yet set in motion a process whereby they will accept that they are accountable for all the harm the Taylor/Symington/Hales Exclusive Brethren have meted out to so many people during the past 55 years.

      Withdrawal from a mother, a father, a child, a sibling, a grandparent, a relative, a friend, a colleague or a neighbour, under the banner of separation from the world or separation from evil, has caused immense heartbreak and distress and brought the Brethren into disrepute.

      A lot of work is required to face up to the damage done. Shared meals will be a step forward, but apologies will be expected, compensation may be required, and an extraordinary level of tact and sympathy by all members of this group will be needed.

      The mother who bore and nurtured a son whom she loved till her dying day deserves nothing less.

      Delete
    3. Joan, I believe the new eating concession only applies to business acquaintances, there is a way to go before we get included ( if we do). The problem is that even though they might reach out again, many of us cannot trust them to maintain it, as the 2002 'review' proved.

      As you say, they have a mountain to climb, but even mountains are conquered step by step.

      Delete
    4. If this only applies to business acquaintances what has this got to do with the CC? I don't think it is on the list of CC demands. BDH is probably including it only with the CC demands (in America they call it "pork-barrelling) as business lunches are a great lubricant to increasing sales - nothing ticks a customer off as much as refusing to eat with him - his automatic assumption is that you think you are to good for him. As well all business lunches and associated costs are tax deductible which means more money in the coffers.

      Delete
    5. Considering this a little more this afternoon has led me to the conclusion that this is a further insult to ex-members of the Brethren as well as to PBCC sisters, who were evidently not allowed to see the documentation that the men were given. How then can the husband and wife converse intelligently in the home, when she has not been party to all the details of the agreement and is forced to take husband's word for it?

      As for 2 Tim 2, if they are prepared to eat with business people, who could possibly be amongst those listed in the scriptures, adulterers etc, it shows what they think of other believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, who might just happened to have had a fax machine, a computer, linked drains or a pension scheme and were booted out.

      It is a highly divisive move which could backfire badly.

      Delete
    6. I would like to see what BDH actually said. Hopefully the 'traitors' will soon let us know
      I agree with Jill - this news (if it not just in business situations) 'shocks me to the core' too. My family was split down the middle because of their separation doctrines. There is nothing they can do now to make that up to us - too many years have passed and people have died. I don't quite know how we can bring it home to them what they have done in the name of christianity. Thanks goodness there are real christians out there who live breathe and ooze christian love - people like Joan. They deserve and get our full respect.

      Matthew

      Delete
    7. Exclusive brethren honesty of heart didn't really exist at the time of the review.They evolved such cold hearted traits

      Joan its a mighty big mountain to climb.In expecting that these humans can ever redevelop true honesty of heart toward us people they have grown apart from.

      At best .I only expect to see the same old shrewd halfhearted approach i experienced in the review.

      Close family relationships don't usually tend to develop overnight.


      Delete
  2. If this report is correct then one of the principal reasons they have given for maintaining their charitable status becomes largely meaningless. ie the funding of a separate school system where children are transported up to 100 miles a day to protect them from coming into contact with non EB children and the evil influences of "the world".
    I wonder if any EB "thinkers" as opposed to the "drinkers" will begin to consider where all this is leading them. If it is not separation what is it that makes the EB so much better than all the rest what is it?. I am inclined to agree with Ian - love of money and power seem to rank highly and those in lowly employment in EB businesses rarely have either.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just on a personal note, I thank your poster for his/her comments about the lack of adult relationship with 'in' parents, and the detrimental effect that has on one's ongoing life. Am sitting here in tears over this very thing, as I think of the countless hundreds of other exEB who share my pain.

    Over 25 years have passed since I decided I had to get out from under the Brethren system, yet here I am, a middle-aged lady, still longing for a parental relationship. And I grieve especially for my children and others of their generation who have exEB parents, who have never known the loving benefit of grandparents (despite said grandparents still being very much alive in some cases, but trapped to death by Brethren dictates.)

    There is an enormous amount of damage-repair needed, BDH & company, before many of those you've treated so badly for so long, will feel free to respond lovingly and trustingly to ANY overtures of loosened separation. You have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
  4. From page 50 of the Charity Commission's findings:

    "2) We are expected to care for those who are receptive to such care in our own community, but then also in the wider community (including former Brethren), to the best of our abilities and within our resources. (Gal 6:10, 2 Cor 1:3)."

    ReplyDelete
  5. The reason they have said it isokto eat with employes etc is be ause they lost an employment tribunal claim in Nothern Ireland where the non EB. Employee was supported by the Equalities Commision. Thes people won't move unless they're pushed very hard. so, we must keep on pushing!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would be amazed if separation was over, even for business dealings. I understand that some worldly employees have eaten with brethren in informal circumstances at UBT seminars but they won't share a table with them. I also have heard of a blind eye being turned when young people have eaten at restaurants, again because a table hasn't been shared.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'because a table hasn't been shared' and therein lies the hypocrisy of the Exclusive Brethren. Maybe we will be invited to our families homes and enjoy a meal together, because underneath the table cloth are two separate, but matching tables? When this 'ministry' was first touted, that's exactly what the crews of Brethren owned fishing boats did. Maybe if you do your number 2's in a plastic bag before you flush it away, they might even share a drain with you!

    The whole concept is elitist and nasty.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Separation isn't over until an announcement is made to the effect that the ministries of Taylor, Hales and Symington has been abandoned. There is still a paper on the EB website describing how important separation is. The EB claim that they make a committment to eat only with those with whom they share the Lord's Supper. http://www.plymouthbrethrenchristianchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Our_beliefs_UK_v7.2_PR1.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  9. What about all the other things from JT,JHS,JSH,BDH's ministry that have been abandoned? Like head coverings for sisters, fax machines, computers, mobile phones, charitable giving etc etc? Are they also not over until the ministries of these men have been abandoned?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fair point but many of these are in one sense detail whilst separation is fundamental and the other items are consequencess not causes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If I may add: any of the items listed by Anonymous (8 March @17:48) are gifts which could be reversed without notice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. When I recently spoke to family members about the newly relaxed separation rules as agreed with the Charity Commission, the first words out of their mouths were: "but we STILL won't eat with you!" So, I guess I would have to do business with them first, as business and money is obviously far more important than your God given family...

    ReplyDelete