Loading...

Thursday, 3 April 2014

Raising awareness of the family destroying cult in which many are raised and trapped


We took some brochures to hand out at the Westminster open air preaching today- these were given to those who were handed PBCC tracts, to the PBCC members who attempted to preach and to Parliamentarians.

Click below to watch movies:


Beating the unceromonious retreat;http://youtu.be/RmZdlCFX7CI

We gave the three PBCC members the full nine yards- they not surprisingly refused to answer my questions about if or not they had read and fully understood  the recent CC decision document; http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/media/591398/preston_down_trust_full_decision.pdf





7 comments:

  1. And in case any member of the PBCC should say they have "changed", they are still treating members within their community who question things and want to leave in the same way. I know of a current member who is not being allowed back to their home country from Australia. Another case of subtle kidnapping?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting to see in the picture the building, Westminster Central Hall, where JTJnr made his challenge for the leadership of the Exclusive Brethren group in 1959. I was there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I miss Central Hall. The one set of fellowship meetings I didn't mind going to!

    ReplyDelete
  4. As a child and adolescent, J N Darby (1800-1882) lived nearby at 9 Great George Street, Westminster. In March 1801, he was baptised at St Margaret's Church, Westminster - just beside Westminster Abbey. In February 1812, he was enrolled as a boarding pupil at the prestigious Westminster School.

    Although J N Darby was utterly convinced that his ecclesiology was correct and that the established and dissenting church was "in ruins", towards the end of his life he deplored the extremist and cruel behaviour of some of the Brethren who were his followers. As a five year old child he had experienced a huge personal loss when his cherished mother, Anne, had left the marital home at Westminster (she lived on until the end of 1847), and he would, I'm sure, be outraged at the way the Taylor Jnr/Symington/Hales Exclusive Brethren have treated non-Brethren family members and acquaintances since the 1960s.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joan wrote, “and he [JND] would, I'm sure, be outraged at the way the Taylor Jnr/Symington/Hales Exclusive Brethren have treated non-Brethren family members and acquaintances since the 1960s.”

    Yes, if JND had seen how Brethren from 1960 onwards have treated non-members, or if he had read Jim Taylor’s appalling ministry about abandoning those who don’t toe the line, he would have called it monstrous. In fact, he did.

    JND Letters Vol. 3 page 35:
    We belong to the other world as risen with Christ, not to this; but as belonging to it, the acknowledgment of what God has established is part of our Christian life. Is a wife to disown her husband, or children their parents? There is at bottom a great deal of self-licence in all this. It is monstrous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why have two of the men jackets on ?. I thought they were not allowed to wear jackets, or is that only in the meeting halls. I did 't think they would be allowed to work in many jobs that would require the wearing of a jacket. I would have thought they were of the anorak and jumper brigade, more suitable for walking alongside a long skirted headscarved partner. Are women allowed work suits too, or would that be power dressing ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jackets may be worn in relation to affairs of the world; these days, some men are involved in business and selling, requiring a smart appearance (it is good fortune that the business world is also much more tie loosed these days). Headscarves have also largely been abandoned outside meeting halls, leaving headbands, or fascinators. Hardly any women are in any form of work requiring power dressing; but a suit, if worn, would certainly have to be skirted.

    Other commentators may have better information on this, as the rules constantly evolve; what might have been a disciplinary, or even excommunication matter yesterday, might be de rigour, tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete