Sunday, 28 September 2014

Key Facts about the PBCC


  1. When I read this document it seems that the PBCC has a heart of stone. It's an abomination to me that this group of Exclusive Brethren treats their own people, former and non-members in the separatist ways described above.

    The Old Testament prophet Ezekiel, living in exile in Babylon in C6 BC, referred to God wanting to "remove from it [God's people] all its detestable things and all its abominations". He speaks of how God wants to "give them a new heart and put a new spirit within them ... so that they may follow my statutes and keep my ordinances and obey them". (Ezekiel 11:18-2)

    The most important commandment? According to Jesus and the apostle Paul it is to love God and love your neighbour as yourself.

  2. The PBCC hierarchy are currently confirming by their actions ( or lack thereof ) that they do indeed have hearts of stone. I don't believe that the Charity Commission will be impressed by their 2014 evasion and skirting of issues of harm and detriment caused by the doctrines and dogma of their religion. They continue to muddy the waters by declaring that persons are not prepared to engage with them 'in good faith' and in a 'constructive' manner. Odd things to declare when they haven't even met you.

  3. I have seen a lot of conspicuous shows of charitable behaviour since June 2012, but I have not seen much attempt to rectify the specific complaints about Brethren practices that the Charity Commission listed in their report. It seems that the Brethren are not willing or not able to fulfill what they promised in their statement of Faith in Practice, but they are trying to compensate by engaging in other kinds of charitable behaviour, unrelated to the specific complaints.

    This is rather odd. It is a bit like a sinner trying to atone for his sins by doing good works, while still committing the same sins. I am glad of the good works, which are better than no change at all, but it would be much better to see the specific changes that the Charity Commission requested.

  4. My computer system can read the KEY FACTS document from the Web link provided above, but it cannot save it on disk. However, I found I could download it and save it more easily from

  5. Ian says 'I have seen a lot of conspicuous shows of charitable behaviour since June 2012'

    So have I, but the only Church organisation that shouts from the rooftops about it is the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. They appear to feel that they are at the forefront of charitable giving, after being banned by previous leaders from doing so for many, many years before.

    A cursory look through very recent Exclusive Brethren appeals to the authorities, reveals that even in 2011, the name Plymouth Brethren Christian Church was not being used.

    It is on this basis alone that the PBCC currently claim to have ALWAYS given to charity. For a couple of years? Yes.

    Like I an says, it's almost like them being caught for speeding, but believing that sweeping the road will get them off the hook.

  6. "We must not sleepwalk into separation, segregation and sectarianism."

    British Home Secretary Theresa May speaking in Birmingham UK, Tuesday 30 September 2014.

    1. She also had a bit to say about religious extremism. There is a rapidly growing global awareness of religious extremism, and a widespread distaste for it. The days are long gone when any kind of religion was automatically assumed to be beneficial. With most forms of religious fundamentalism, the opposite assumption is a better bet.

    2. Here is another quotation from Theresa May’s speech, as closely as I can remember it: “Not all religious extremism leads to violence, and not all religious extremists are violent, but the harm religious extremism does to society is enough reason for us to take action.”

      It remains to be seen what she means by “take action.” She might be doing little more than posturing, but if she does introduce new legislative or administrative measures against religious extremists, she will be constitutionally obliged to be even-handed. She could not, for instance, introduce measures against Islamic extremists and not against Christian extremists. Her speech was therefore a veiled threat against all ideological extremists.

      There are certainly some of the Hales fellowship who would come into the category of religious extremists. Some, for instance, including some leaders, have denounced democracy. Some oppose racial and sexual equality. Some have publicly supported criminal penalties for homosexuals, and some (though not leaders) have even called for the death penalty for homosexuals. Look at the Key Facts document at the head of this thread if you want to see other examples of Brethren extremism.

    3. The quote is:

      "There will, I’m sure, be some who say politicians shouldn’t get involved in these matters. But to live in a modern liberal state is not to live in a moral vacuum. We have to stand up for our values as a nation. There will, I know, be some who say that what I describe as extremism is merely social conservatism. But if others described a woman’s intellect as “deficient”, denounced people on the basis of their religious beliefs, or rejected the democratic process, we would quite rightly condemn their bigotry. And there will be others who say I am wrong to link these kinds of beliefs with the violent extremism we agree we must confront. To them I say, yes, not all extremism leads to violence. And not all extremists are violent. But the damage extremists cause to our society is reason enough to act. And there is, undoubtedly, a thread that binds the kind of extremism that promotes intolerance, hatred and a sense of superiority over others to the actions of those who want to impose their values on us through violence."