Loading...

Wednesday, 3 September 2014

Individual exercise and protecting 'the position'

The devastating and harmful way in which many senior members of the Hales Exclusive brethren (PBCC) have acted towards both members and ex-members has been in some cases including my own acknowledged but no compensation  has been offered. 
Garth Christie, Graham Reiner and Bruce Hazel are collectively responsible for many families that have been destroyed and would be well advised to dig deep or face serious exposure. 
Garth, Graham and Bruce you know what your obligations are and you know those who your Church has damaged yet you continue to ignore correspondence relating to specific cases- if you think this will help you to retain Charitable status at the end of your probationary period you are in for a serious shock!

18 comments:

  1. One would have thought that the amount of positive 'spin' the PBCC could achieve from settling with genuinely harmed ex-members, would far outweigh the one-off financial cost's incurred. I am surprised that their public relations people haven't pointed this out, though I guess they would be kinda doing themselves out of a job . In the long term, fighting a war of attrition with a stream of rebuttals, denials and downright lies will inevitably cost the PBCC more financially and in terms of their reputation will be far more damaging.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The starting point for the EB is that they are right and the injured party is responsible for their own situation.This EB mindset is reinforced by their arrogance and failure to contemplate the possibility that their behaviour may have contributed to the harm and detriment suffered by a person who has for whatever reason left their cult. This attitude is not altogether surprising from a cult that insulates itself from the outside world and considers itself "the only right position". As an EB sympathiser has recently stated they are the only position where "divine standards are maintained". Quite frankly decades of isolation and brainwashing have seriously affected their critical faculties.

      Delete
    2. I completely agree with both Anons above. Despite 'apologies' being dished out by the HEB in 2002/3 at their review where some people were even told they had been wrongly w/d/f, the HEB *now* tell those same people - whose family remain separated from them - that it is somehow their own fault they are w/d/f and it is up to them to "get right". When asked what must be done to "get right", there is just a lot of verbal flapping and blustering and half-finished sentences about "not keeping separate from the world". But the Brethren FORCED disciplined members INTO the world by [wrongly, they now decide after up to three decades] withdrawing from them & refusing to interact!

      Their lack of logic - to say nothing of their arrogance and spiritual pride - is just astounding, and not a little bit horrifying. The HEB seem to now be clinging onto a sort of 'no comprende' when it comes to the responsibility they should be taking for the results of their "wrong" decisions: split damaged destroyed dysfunctional families, ruined employment/education prospects, untenable mental torture, exEB inheritances stolen via psychological pressure put on elderly Brethren... the list is long, and different for each person to whom Brethren separatism has been applied. How they can continue to claim 'no comprende for damage done', when the CC said quite categorically that they need to remedy historical lack of compassion, is beyond me.

      Delete
  2. The latest word from inside the Peebs is that the 55 page charities commission document is being read out at every meeting in Britain - the one year review is approaching and Beadie's Bunch is getting nervous!

    ReplyDelete
  3. We heard an audio recording of this document being read out in one meeting several months ago. Brothers were given a hard copy of the document for the duration of the meeting which they then had to hand back afterwards in a very organised fashion.

    For Pete's sake, it's a public document in the public domain. Why aren't the run of the mill PBCC allowed to access it at will online?

    The fact that they are apparently not allowed to do this, tells it's own story of the control and abuse continuing unabated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Anon, it was read out at that meeting months ago, and brothers individually had to sign to indicate knowledge/agreement. But only recently (as Anon 3 Sept 15:51 states) I'm told it has also been read out at other local UK meetings, no signing required. So I think he/she has a point about them hastily trying to start covering a few basics before the year is up.

      I agree about the control & abuse continuing unabated. So far it seems there have been virtually no moves by the HEB/PBCC leadership to cover the REAL requirements of the CC decision, e.g. separation being moral not physical; amends to be made for past historical mistakes and damage to individuals & families from HEB/PBCC disciplinary procedures; ability for non- and ex-Brethren to attend HEB/PBCC funeral services; care for those in the wider community (including former Brethren), "to the best of Brethren abilities and resources.”.

      And there are many many more CC requirements the Brethren have yet to start practising, it seems to me: see for example clauses 87-93 on http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/media/591398/preston_down_trust_full_decision.pdf

      Delete
  4. EB doctrine teaches members must recognise, obey & submit to whatever decisions are made in each local assembly they are in fellowship with universally

    For example,

    If members of Hales EB local assembly meeting Y “withdraw from” cut off and separate from a person in their local assembly, say, because that person went to another Church outside EB, then, all other Hales EB local assemblies across the world who are in fellowship with meeting Y as part of the EB “universal position”, must agree to, submit to, and obey the decision of meeting Y.

    This is known as the Universal Position / Universal Assembly Responsibility, if this doctrine was disobeyed then it’s labelled as independent thinking, which isn’t allowed

    For example,

    If members of Hales EB local assembly X, do not obey the assembly decision of assembly Y and allow the person from assembly Y to associate or fellowship with those in assembly X, then key members of assembly X may in turn be “withdrawn from”, in other words cut off from family and friends.

    This requirement for members to submit to, uphold and enforce all assembly decisions across the universal position, must take place despite sometimes being in ignorance of the true detail involved, or privately not agreeing with the assembly action / decision taken, or only being aware of the character assassination that those who leave suffer in absentia. It doesn’t matter, independent thinking and action is not allowed and all members of each local assembly must agree with, obey and uphold the decision taken by other assemblies in the EB, as EB teach the assembly in each local place is always right and decisions must be upheld and enforced

    Members of other local assemblies sometimes try to absolve their individual consciences of this universal responsibility by claiming its nothing to do with them and not their problem so doesn’t affect them directly.

    Yet, this apparent salving of conscience means nothing, as like it or not, the doctrine of Universal Position / Universal Assembly Responsibility, makes each member of the EB universally responsible for all actions/decisions of both themselves, each other, their own local assembly and each others local assembly across the world and for the enforcing, upholding and maintenance of such. If a member is found doing something wrong, going to the cinema, for example, (which is banned) then the doctrine of Universal Position / Universal Assembly Responsibility is enforced as its often said “you took the Brethren with you and we didn’t want to go”

    However, if the “heat” from a member / local assemblies actions is becoming too hot or uncomfortable for EB hierarchy the doctrine of Universal Position / Universal Assembly Responsibility can be abandoned and the issue at hand will be declared a “private matter”, “family matter” or “individual exercise”, showing inherent hypocrisy, double standards & deceit in EB system

    Its a devious attempt to absolve collective responsibility for matters of detriment and harm, when in fact having an individual exercise, private matter, or family matter is not allowed because it contradicts the doctrine of Universal Position / Universal Assembly Responsibility

    We’ve seen examples of this double standard in the Aussie elections in 2005/6 and in the public scrutiny of the Charity Commission case in the UK in the last few years.

    When the doctrine of Universal Position / Universal Assembly Responsibility is fully understood by public authorities, they will realise PBCC EB / Hales EB are culpable, liable & responsible for all matters of detriment & harm corporately & at each individual assembly meeting room trust level.

    Those who’ve assumed a mantle of elder, leader or trust holder, are fully exposed to corporate responsibility for detriment and harm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahem..Can someone be specific? Who is harming who exactly? This story is vague to say the least.
      It goes without saying, most organisations have a code of conduct or unwritten rules of what is expected as a member. Non members or former members do not need to comply and indeed are not expected to. Now having found your "freedom" outside, why such a spirit of discontent?
      Made your bed, so now sleep on it.

      Delete
    2. Anon 4th Sept 17:05

      An Exclusive Brethren, PBCC, Hales EB, sympathiser / supporter, exposed because of the goading tone, complete lack of compassion and lack of basic Christian biblical understanding shown in the post.

      The post by Anon 3 Sept 19:02 is not a “story” as you label it, its a clear explanation of some of the issues arising out of the doctrine of “Universal Assembly Responsibility” that’s followed by the group you support, (or more likely are a member of) and how that doctrine impacts “Individual exercise” and “protecting 'the position'” as described at the top of this thread.

      Most secular organisations do indeed have a “code of conduct” and some have “unwritten rules of what is expected as a member” as you label it. However, in the case of the Exclusive Brethren, PBCC, Hales EB we’re not talking about a typical organisation, or secular group, we are talking about a religious group that claims to be Christian and claims to follow the Bible. Therefore, the groups actions, beliefs, practices, doctrines are measured against what the Bible says, not against the standards of a secular organisation nor against standards of supposed unwritten rules, neither of which should be present in a Christian Church which follows the Bible

      When this measurement and scrutiny takes place, it becomes crystal clear that Exclusive Brethren, PBCC, Hales EB practices can not be supported from Gods Word in the Bible, yet, the group continues to use the cover of supposedly being Christian to carry out serious harm and detriment, against its members and those who try to leave the group

      Its true that non members or former members of a secular organisation “do not need to comply and indeed are not expected to”, yet, we are not discussing a secular organisation we are dealing with a harmful and detrimental religious group which claims to be Christian and claims to follow the Bible

      However, even from a secular organisation non members or former members do not expect to suffer discrimination, harm and detriment. If this happened then complaints would be made, legal process would follow, due investigation would be carried out, those responsible would be held to account, recompense would be made, authorities would ensure damaging practices were changed never to happen again, reform would take place, etc etc

      How much more important then, for the process described in the above paragraph to be applied to a religious group which claims to be Christian and claims to follow the Bible

      Such a supposed Christian group should “never” be found in the position of creating & practicing generation upon generation of discrimination, harm and detriment because that would mean it has departed from the Christian faith and the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul as found in the Christian Bible. Yet, this is the shocking situation with the Exclusive Brethren, PBCC, Hales EB.

      The Exclusive Brethren, PBCC, Hales EB have been exposed as causing generations of harm and detriment, so proper due process should and will take place, even if at first the group in question drags its heels and tries to spread denials, spin, half truths, lies and tries to hoodwink those in authority

      R

      Delete
    3. You have missed one important point - none of us made our bed, we were born into it. We did not choose to join this group and not all chose to leave it, some were kicked out. And we have not chosen to lose our families, and in some cases our homes, jobs, money. We are still being harassed, not allowed to attend our parents' or children's funeral, I would have thought that the reason for some to be unhappy was pretty obvious.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 17.05 says

      'most organisations have a code of conduct or unwritten rules'

      I will rephrase that.........all law-abiding organisations have written rules which tend not to change dramatically according to which way the wind is blowing and to which they are held accountable. Societies generally have codes of conduct, which normally includes not ostracizing members who attend a different place of worship than me.

      Most can see that the PBCC has become a hybrid, oddity which does not play by any hard and fast rules, preferring to react to individual problems with knee-jerk responses. What happened yesterday may not happen tomorrow and therein lies the only consistency they have and that is their inconsistency

      Delete
    5. I can only agree with 17:05.

      Jill may be trying to say, if we are born into the PBCC, we are no longer responsible for our actions. I regret to say that's a typical social worker outlook without a moral compass. I think You know far better.
      We have a God given conscience and can choose either evil or good.

      So please stop blaming other people for where you find yourself today. Circumstances do not make us less responsible. Having been in the brethren it makes us the most responsible people on the face of the earth.

      Sadly, there is now a considerable portion in UK society which demands everything, but is thankful for nothing. Our society is now failing to teach children to respect authority in government and to value their elders.
      Ever wonder why there are some who want to be set apart from all that?

      Wake up Jill and get back to the point of departure. The brethren have got many things right. Look for good and you will find it. Look for fault and you will find it.
      Bless and you will be blessed.

      Think generously of those who offend and God will change your heart.
      Rise above it, not in seeking revenge, but rather to forgive and be at peace with God and men. Do some research in your own heart and come out different.

      Strong words, but love behind it.







      Delete
    6. I did post this last night but it doesn’t appear to have worked so I will repost

      Anon 4th Sept 17:05

      An Exclusive Brethren, PBCC, Hales EB, sympathiser / supporter, exposed because of the goading tone, lack of compassion and lack of basic Christian biblical understanding shown in the post.

      The post by Anon 3 Sept 19:02 is not a “story” as you label it, its a clear explanation of some of the issues arising out of the doctrine of “Universal Assembly Responsibility” that’s followed by the group you support, (or more likely are a member of) and how that doctrine impacts “Individual exercise” and “protecting 'the position'” as described at the top of this thread.

      Most secular organisations do indeed have a “code of conduct” and some have “unwritten rules of what is expected as a member” as you label it. However, in the case of the Exclusive Brethren, PBCC, Hales EB we’re not talking about a typical organisation, or secular group, we are talking about a religious group that claims to be Christian and claims to follow the Bible. Therefore, the groups actions, beliefs, practices, doctrines are measured against what the Bible says, not against the standards of a secular organisation nor against standards of supposed unwritten rules, neither of which should be present in a Christian Church which follows the Bible

      When this measurement and scrutiny takes place, it becomes crystal clear that Exclusive Brethren, PBCC, Hales EB practices can not be supported from Gods Word in the Bible, yet, the group continues to use the cover of supposedly being Christian to carry out serious harm and detriment, against its members and those who try to leave the group

      Its true that non members or former members of a secular organisation “do not need to comply and indeed are not expected to”, yet, we are not discussing a secular organisation we are dealing with a harmful and detrimental religious group which claims to be Christian and claims to follow the Bible

      However, even from a secular organisation non members or former members do not expect to suffer discrimination, harm and detriment. If this happened then complaints would be made, legal process would follow, due investigation would be carried out, those responsible would be held to account, recompense would be made, authorities would ensure damaging practices were changed never to happen again, reform would take place, etc etc

      How much more important then, for the process described in the above paragraph to be applied to a religious group which claims to be Christian and claims to follow the Bible

      Such a supposed Christian group should “never” be found in the position of creating & practicing generation upon generation of discrimination, harm and detriment because that would mean it has departed from the Christian faith and the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul as found in the Christian Bible. Yet, this is the shocking situation with the Exclusive Brethren, PBCC, Hales EB.

      The Exclusive Brethren, PBCC, Hales EB have been exposed as causing generations of harm and detriment, so proper due process should and will take place, even if at first the group in question drags its heels and tries to spread denials, spin, half truths, lies and tries to hoodwink those in authority.

      Delete
    7. Anon 5 September 2014 10:00 who is an Exclusive Brethren, PBCC Hales EB supporter and defender, says –

      “Circumstances do not make us less responsible. Having been in the brethren it makes us the most responsible people on the face of the earth.”

      Wow, what blatant hypocrisy, and double speak.

      If Anon 5 Sept 10:00 really and truly believed what they say in the above quote, then why are the Brethren desperately trying to wriggle out of “their” responsibility for the generations of serious discrimination, harm and detriment they have caused to individuals and families ?

      Anon 5 Sept 10:00 then makes the typical Exclusive Brethren handbrake turn and contradicts his previous statement quoted above by then saying the following –

      “Look for good and you will find it. Look for fault and you will find it… Think generously of those who offend and God will change your heart. Rise above it, not in seeking revenge, but rather to forgive and be at peace with God and men”

      This is the classic cop out from Anon 5 Sept 10:00
      Anon 5 Sept 10:00 (an Exclusive Brethren PBCC supporter), tries to absolve the responsibility for detriment and harm by effectively saying “rise above it” and just “forgive it”.

      All of which is in direct contradiction to the previous statement of Anon 5 Sept 10:00 which admitted the Brethren are responsible for their actions and the circumstances of the Brethren do not make them less responsible !!

      The double speak, contradictions, hypocrisy and trying to wriggle out of responsibility as displayed by Anon 5 Sept 10:00 are a very poor advert for the supposed Christian faith of Exclusive Brethren PBCC Hales EB.

      Delete
    8. Laurie

      The comment 'Anonymous 5 September 2014 10:00' could do with going on a separate blog, actually 5 blogs ~ a paragraph each

      I found the EB at fault in each one, and clearly the author is blinded and doesn't realize. We need to educate him

      Paul

      Delete
  5. As an aside it is my understanding that this "universal position" doctrine also applies in those branches of the EB that seceded from Jim Taylor's jr in 1970. For example Renton Brethren and Frost Brethren. This particular doctrine which has been practised by the Exclusives since JT senior's time has been the root cause of the further divisions that have occurred amongst those who separated from JTjr in 1970. This doctrine is the main mechanism whereby the Universal Leader retains control of all local assemblies.
    I have never been able to identify a New Testament scripture to justify such a view. Scripture points to Elders and church government being local, not universal.
    However the "universal position" doctrine as practised by the Hales EB firmly places culpability for the detriment and harm they have caused at the door of the Universal Leader who as we know makes or is made aware of all major decisions.
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The stress on maintaining "the position" was the root cause of the EB/OB split way back in 1848. It was something Darby held to, but I think later that he had regrets when he saw the degree of splits and animosity it caused. At one time he tried a reconciliation meeting with George Muller; but Muller brushed him off because there some serious retractions due by Darby after all his cruel comments made in writing at the time of the division.

      Phil

      Delete
    2. Phil - you're right that the 1848 'Bethesda' split was about John Darby's adamant insistence that only his theology and ecclesiology represented the right position for the Brethren.

      His actions then deeply disturbed many of his followers and the letter he wrote about the matter from Yorkshire in August 1848, the so-called 'Bethesda Circular', only exacerbated the problem. In that letter he wrote about "the infection of the abominable evil" (of the beliefs of those who disagreed with him) and, in my opinion, that terrible phrase seems still to resonate in one form or other within the Hales group today.

      After 1848, many brethren left the fellowship - some to return to Anglicanism, others to stay as Open Brethren. Some people who wanted to stay loyal to Darby asked him to withdraw the Circular, and in the early 1850s he agreed to do that, though he said that he himself stood by what he'd written.

      I suggest that in 1848 John Darby was at breaking point. Some students of his life say that he was psychologically disturbed and the evidence seems to back that up. I've often wondered whether the death of his ninety year old mother, Anne, on 31 December 1847, triggered some kind of deep, inner confusion within her 48 year old son. Was he undergoing what we would call a mid-life crisis? All his life he had been devoted to his mother, who had left the family home when he was only five years old. The unmarried man who had been separated from his beloved mother in early childhood was perhaps so damaged that he couldn't handle the situation when brethren on whom he relied rejected his idealism.

      Delete