Loading...

Friday, 29 May 2015

Will The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church Follow Suit?

What will it take for the Hales Exclusive Brethren or PBCC (as they now like to be known) to request a meaningful audit of detriment and harm  caused by their Church?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32909444


Methodist Church apologises for abuse spanning decades

  • 28 May 2015
  •  
  • From the section UK
Boy holding his head

The UK's Methodist Church has made a public apology after an investigation uncovered reports of nearly 2,000 alleged abusers - including 914 allegations involving sexual abuse.

An independent inquiry looked at the Church's response to complaints and allegations dating back to 1950.

General secretary, the Revd Dr Martyn Atkins, said abuse was "a deep source of grief and shame to the Church".

A law firm representing some of the victims welcomed the apology.

'Worthless and devalued'

The Church commissioned the review - which took three years to complete - because it said it wanted to be open about the past and to have stronger safeguarding procedures in the future.

In total, it identified 1,885 cases - with reported abuse including alleged sexual, physical, emotional and domestic abuse, as well as cases of neglect. 

The report recorded a "case" as an individual perpetrator or alleged perpetrator - but said there were "multiple" responses relating to some individuals.

Allegations of sexual abuse formed the largest number of cases.

Ministers or lay employees were involved in 26% of the alleged cases of abuse, the investigation found. 

That figure increased to 33% when Church members, such as worship leaders and local preachers, were also included. 

Media caption"Frank" describes the abuse that happened to him (words spoken by an actor)

One of the cases concerned the grooming of teenage girls on Facebook, while another involved a minister allegedly making sexual advances to children. Another involved a Methodist youth officer who had indecent images of children on his computer. 

One of the abuse survivors who responded to the survey said: "I have learnt that it is impossible to recover from sexual abuse when no-one recognises the seriousness of it. My Church did not want a scandal, my parents did not want a scandal.

"I was left to feel worthless and devalued, while the man was left to get on with his life and for all I know repeat the crime with someone else. I was emotionally and physically devastated."

Another welcomed the review, saying: "I want to prevent the Church and other people from handling things wrong in the future. I don't want other girls to suffer like I have."

Review chairman Jane Stacey, former deputy chief executive of the children's charity Barnardo's, called for a culture change in the Church. 

abuse allegations
The report notes that a high number does not necessarily indicate more abuse occurred, saying "in at least one district with high figures it was because of diligent and thorough record-keeping and reporting"

Ministers of religion were in an "almost unique position of trust" at "very vulnerable times" in people's lives, she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme, calling for "more robust accountability structures".

She added: "Some of the individual case reviewers who looked at the material that was submitted to the review found themselves questioning, and really being quite upset, at the volume coming through.

"I think society at large needs to understand there is a lot more abuse but also areas of concern than people ever thought - and the Church is no exception."

Ms Stacey said 503 cases were being followed up by the safeguarding team within the Methodist Church. Of those, 61 have had contact with the police, and there are six ongoing police investigations.

Rev Atkins, who is also secretary of the Methodist Conference, said: "On behalf of the Methodist Church in Britain I want to express an unreserved apology for the failure of its current and earlier processes fully to protect children, young people and adults from physical and sexual abuse inflicted by some ministers.

"The abuse that has been inflicted by some Methodists on children, young people and adults is and will remain a deep source of grief and shame to the Church." 

'Most vulnerable'

A law firm representing a group of individuals taking action against the Methodist Church welcomed the apology.

The claimants allege they were abused by a church missionary in Africa during the 1980s.

Nichola Marshall, head of international abuse at law firm Leigh Day, said: "It has taken my clients over 30 years to have the courage to come forward with their allegations of abuse against the Methodist Church.

"It must never again be the case that the reputation of institutions take precedence over the welfare of society's most vulnerable."

David Greenwood, chairman of the Stop Church Child Abuse campaign, said: "The cases examined are only the ones documented in the past. Many will not have been recorded. We will never know how many cases have not been handled properly."

The Church is expected to also make a public apology at its annual conference in June.

63 comments:

  1. Don't hold your breath on the PBCC doing the same thing. They don't apologise to people they have wronged - and if they do - unless the person to whom they are directing their apologies complies with what they want - they simply shut the door again. They 'apologised' to hundreds of people they had thrown out wrongfully in 2002-3 and when they did not immediately return to their church - cut off all communication again. A double slap in the face. As for child molestation - it never happened. It was the work of individuals not known to them. It is not Bruce Hales fault. They know nothing about it. They would NEVER say SORRY - because they are scared to death of being sued. And there's only one thing they guard more fiercely than their so called reputation -and that's their bank balance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No need Laurie. Everything above board and in order. We follow God's word as simple and humble Christians. This is the sort of evil that occurs once clergy are involved, who somehow think they are above God's command. Praise the Lord that JND saw the light and commenced the recovery of the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The responses from PBCC Exclusive Brethren apologisers (members) in comments at 31st May 04:32 and 1st June 06:50 and 31st May 18:15 are a perfect example of how the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church aka Exclusive Brethren have utterly lost touch with, understanding of, acceptance of and knowledge of, Gods Word the Holy Bible, (the very foundation of Christianity)

      The Bible teaches Christians to seek and pursue justice, many, many times.

      So to belittle, criticise, denigrate and abuse those who are seeking justice is utterly unchristian !

      To make those belittling comments, criticisms, condescending remarks, by twisting and taking out of context the Holy Bible is also utterly unchristian. That attitude is the same as that displayed by the Pharisees in the Bible, which Christ had to battle against.

      To make those comments in the face of a public atmosphere of horror that abuses of children and others has happened in many institutions is also utterly crass and unchristian and shows the PBCC aka Exclusive Brethren to be without any compassion whatever.

      To make such comments when there is already plenty of evidence of abuses of Children and others within the PBCC aka Exclusive Brethren is also unchristian and shows a base evil within the organisation that tacitly condones abuses !

      The very fact that from 1959 to the present day (2015) there are families and children divided, spilt up, and prevented from having ‘normal’ relations with parents and wider family is in itself an abuse !

      PBCC Exclusive Brethren have you become so self righteous, proud, arrogant, obnoxious and unchristian, like the Pharisees in the Bible ?

      PBCC Exclusive Brethren, have you no shame ?

      Delete
    2. 10:42 Whoa steady on there.... FACTS PLEASE!

      Do you actually know who made the comments, or is it yet another of your assumptions that you are better than Christians who simply want to be separate from evil?

      Does not the Judge of all the Earth do right? If we confess our sins, he is ready and able to forgive them. Are you asserting God is not just to all men? There is justice for those in Christ Jesus. Refer to your bible and be enlightened by the truth.

      We are not really in a position to judge others for the reason behind those comments,but we can ask God to search our own hearts.
      Moreover, "faithful are the wounds of a friend

      We should not be casting stones at the PBCC or at anyone else, especially as we are not in a position to do so. Have you ever read about that wonderful example of justice when Christ said "Go and sin no more" Do you not think this also applies to all of us? They went out one by one in shame for their spirit of accusation.
      Where is your so called "Evidence" Are you the judge of any matter?

      Last 2 Paras: Have you ever asked yourself the same questions?
      Just asking...

      Delete
    3. Anon 1 June 2015 at 13:00

      I will respond to some of your comments

      Your 1st Paragraph (1st Part)
      The only persons who comment on these blogs in support of the PBCC Exclusive Brethren are members. They often masquerade as non members or those in authority, but the language, sentence construction, phrases, colloquialisms, EB group speak, defence of the indefensible, twisting of Gods Word, etc, etc, exposes them as members of the PBCC EB. I know you don’t realise it, but the way PBCC EB members speak and deceive is unique to the PBCC EB. My comments are drawn from the evidence I read supplied by supporters of the PBCC EB

      Your 1st Paragraph (2nd Part)
      You defend the PBCC Exclusive Brethren in terms of them being Christians and wanting to separate from evil. Yet, are you aware the PBCC EB disobey, ignore, or twist vast swathes of the Holy Bible which is Gods Word. Christians are supposed to follow Gods Word, the Bible, The PBCC EB don’t follow the Bible

      All Christians (meaning ALL in the Body of Christ, His Assembly, of which there are millions and millions outside the PBCC EB), strive to keep apart from evil, as biblically instructed. Yet, Gods Word the Bible does NOT teach that this means keeping separate from ALL other Christians (which the PBCC EB do), nor does it teach that it means dividing families even if all the family are Christians (which the PBCC EB do).

      Therefore, to use a desire to keep separate from evil as a worthy PBCC EB trait is pure delusion, misinformation, spin and deception, especially so, when PBCC EB contains such evil within it !. Matters such as - dividing the Body of Christ, condoning alcoholism, condoning sordid behaviour of leaders, dividing families, sectarianism, dividing husband and wife, etc

      Your 2nd paragraph
      The clear condescending platitudes and sanctimonious deception give you away as a member of the PBCC EB.

      Yes the Judge of all the earth does right, but Christ works through people to achieve His justice now. Christ may not wait till the judgement seat, he uses persons ‘now’ to achieve justice and uses institutions and authorities ‘now’.

      There are well over 150 references to Justice and seeking Justice in the Bible, here are a small selection –

      Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.

      Proverbs 21:15 When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.

      Proverbs 21:3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.

      Proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.

      Anon 1 June 2015 at 13:00
      Your cant ‘hide’ behind Christ, that’s what the lowest deceivers try to do, the Bible teaches that ALL must respect, obey and submit to the institutions and authorities of this life – read –

      Romans 13:1-7 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

      Delete
    4. 11:42
      Para 1: Nope - I'm not a member of the PBCC

      Para 3: The body of Christ is made up of members of that body.
      You may continue to foolishly insist the those members include worldly
      notions, links and associations, but these are not of Christ and thus not
      of his body. Your willingness to compromise and be full of bitter
      contention therefore puts you firmly (outside of the body of Christ)
      God does not accept your notion that anything will do. His body is pure.
      He cannot look on sin, but through grace he sent his only son
      Jesus to forgive us our sins. So your proposal is a gross affront
      to the death of Christ and the sufferings of his people in
      times past and the present day. Face facts instead of
      trying to oppose and contend the laws of a just God.

      Here's 2 simple questions which really settles
      the whole thing nicely in a nutshell -
      Does darkness and light occupy the same space?
      Does good and evil dwell together in harmony?

      Para 12: "Behind"?
      There are those who are hidden in Christ, not "behind him".
      He is also our refuge from the coming wrath.
      Being true to Christ will cost you something.
      This is especially more so in these closing days.
      So you see Rev, it is either Christ or the world...
      Are we prepared to suffer along with the people
      of God or are we going to betray them?
      I think that's a fair question for us to ponder.

      Para 13: Do you not know the saints will rule over the earth?
      Such have authority from God and do have an influence
      on governments which restrains and contains evil.
      We only have to look at election results in the Western world
      to know that God hears the prayers of those that fear and obey him.

      In summary, we can see that being a member of the "Body of Christ"
      means 100% surrender to his word and washing our robes.
      The tree of life does not produce both good and bad fruit.



      Delete
    5. Anonymous of 5 June 2015 at 18:27, who is “not a member of the PBCC”,

      You have set out a number of very dogmatic criteria for deciding who is or is not a member of the body of Christ, based on “worldly notions, links and associations,” and “bitter contention” and whether darkness and light can occupy the same space and “100% surrender to his word and washing our robes.”

      Some of your criteria are contrary to scripture, and most of them, if we took them seriously, would put the PBCC and some of the New Testament churches firmly outside the body of Christ. If your intention is to defend the PBCC, your criteria do not fit that purpose at all. Being associated with the Exclusive Brethren was the most worldly link I have ever had, and during my association with them I was exposed to many of their worldly notions, bitter contentions, spiritual darkness and neglect of the core values of Christianity.

      Since then, among some PBCC members, “neglect” has been superseded by “contempt”. For instance, if you look at the remarks of Anonymous 24 May 2015 at 19:46 you will see the core values of the Christian message, as set out by both Jesus and Paul and accurately summarised by Joan, are contemptuously dismissed as “a pyramid of piffle.”

      Delete
    6. Anon 5 June 18:27

      Your language, sentence construction, defence of the unchristian & indefensible & EB speak, gives you away as a member of the EB aka PBCC. Your comments are straight out of a “White Book”. Like I said before, you don’t realise it but EB PBCC members speak in a way unique to them & no amount of wriggling can disguise that.

      Re your comments on who is fit for the Body of Christ.

      Please read your Bible carefully because you appear to ignore it & instead replace it with sectarian pharisaical laws / doctrines invented by Exclusive Brethren aka PBCC.

      Please explain & define your sweeping broad brush of “worldly
      notions, links and associations” – what do you mean by this ? what things do you include in it ? where are you referring to from the Bible ?

      I have not suggested ‘compromise’ I said that ALL who put their faith & trust in the shed blood of Christ are part of the Body of Christ / His Assembly. Read your Bible & you will find that explained.

      I am not “full of bitter contention” I have entered a debate online, just as you have.

      I have not said ‘anything with do”, nor have I “opposed the laws of a just God”, both of which are false accusations. I have simply stated the truth of the Body of Christ as it says in the Bible

      You see, the Bible says the following –

      Ephesians 4:4-7 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.

      John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

      1 Corinthians 12:12-31 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many.

      Colossians 2:18-19 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

      Romans 14:1-4 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.

      Romans 15:7 Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.

      Galatians 2:16 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

      Anon 5 June 18:27

      Despite your dramatic pharisaical assertions & false accusations, the Bible teaches that ALL who put their faith & trust in the shed blood of Christ are part of the Body of Christ.

      A Christian knows that 1 Corinthians 5:11, 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5:19-21 detail those who will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God . E.G. - Galatians 5:19-21 “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

      Anon 5 June 18:27

      Surely your not suggesting ALL those Christians outside PBCC EB fall into the categories of 1 Corinthians 5:11, 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5:19-21, & only PBCC EB are pure, are you ??

      May I humbly remind you of the many witnesses & documented evidence of such things in Galatians 5:19-21 within the Exclusive Brethren PBCC !!

      Delete
    7. Rev - 12:38 Are you still set on being an opposer?

      The body of Christ is pure and free from the world.
      Unless you are going to be submissive to this truth, everything
      you say rings hollow and and has nothing to offer anyone.
      However, you are right about the PBCC being "Unique"
      The Lord has set aside a peculiar people to ensure the
      recovery is suitably maintained until he comes.

      There is nothing to explain or define.
      You make your position very clear and it is
      one of error and ends in the loss of your soul.

      Delete
    8. Anon is right Ian
      There is a great deal of Pyramid of Piffle about the Peebs
      which just doesn't really ring true.
      I also think that BR has to bury the hatchet and stop
      stop being so defensive. It's all too easy to assume that the
      comments are being made by Peebs to avoid the point made.
      It is of my own experience that the
      Peebs tend to come up trumps if challenged. "Live and let live"
      may not be in the Bible, but it is something we should be in favour
      of instead of always having issues with those people we
      might not agree with. Better pipe down chaps and leave them
      well alone. BR seems to be a rather bitter individual with an
      unhealthy agenda.

      Dick

      Delete
    9. To Anon of 8 June 2015 at 20:52,
      There are thousands of cults that all think they are uniquely set aside by the Lord as a peculiar people. It is pretty obvious that all or nearly all of them must be wrong about that. The PBCC claim of unique ecclesiastical rectitude is one of the least credible of these thousands of dubious claims.

      To Dick of 8 June 2015 at 21:17
      On the Internet there are pyramids of piffle about just about any subject, including the peebs, as you say, but Anon of http://laurencemoffitt.blogspot.com/2015/05/this-monday-pbcc-prayer-meeting-agenda.html?showComment=1432493161417#c6619916012973190724 was very wrong to dismiss Joan’s comment as a pyramid of piffle, because her post was soundly based on the teachings of Jesus and Paul, accurately summarising them, showing how they related to Old Testament scriptures and putting emphasis just where they put it. Anon’s post showed contempt for the core values of Christianity.

      Your “live and let live” dictum has its place when we are dealing with mere eccentricity, folly, deception or relatively harmless delusions, but it is not an appropriate response to serious social harm, such as arises from the teachings and practices of the PBCC. If people like Wilberforce all decided to “live and let live” we would still have slavery, children working in the mines, ruthless exploitation and gross violations of human rights.

      Delete
    10. Anon 8 June at 20:52

      You use the word ‘opposer’

      I have only heard that word used by members of the Exclusive Brethren and other harmful sects. An opposer of ‘what’, one might ask ?

      I’m certainly not an opposer of Christianity as I am a Christian saved by the Blood of Christ and belong to His Body, His Assembly. No mere ‘man’ can take that away or question that. I follow and submit to Gods Word which is the Bible and take my place at the Lords Table. I enjoy fellowship, worship and communion with other Biblical following Christians at my local Church (non denominational evangelical), and with any other Christians that follow the Bible.

      However, I am an opposer of sectarian groups which twist the Word of God to suit their own sectarian extremist harmful family dividing agenda and groups which trap and enslave persons to a ‘Gospel Plus’ message, which is the worst form of bondage. Such groups would include the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and all types of Exclusive Brethrenism including the PBCC.

      A Christian is naturally an opposer of such sectarian groups, because Gods Word, the Bible is full of examples of Christ and the Apostle Paul exposing such groups and practices and warning against such groups

      You say “There is nothing to explain or define.”

      Which is a typical Exclusive Brethren evasion tactic.

      You see, all extremist sectarian harmful groups don’t like it when their doctrines & practices are put under too much scrutiny. They have the temerity and arrogance to think they can say anything they like however extremist, or sectarian, or baseless, or without evidence, or damaging, without being further questioned or challenged on what they have said.

      Then when put under further probing scrutiny they complain or try to close down the conversation (as you have tried Anon 8 June at 20:52)

      This is one of the defining marks of a sectarian extremist damaging and harmful group. For a Christian (or anyone else), it is especially important to challenge and put claims under deeper scrutiny when claims have been made about the Christian faith

      Anon 5 June at 18:27 says

      “The body of Christ is made up of members of that body.You may continue to foolishly insist the those members include worldly notions, links and associations, but these are not of Christ and thus not of his body.”

      In my post of 8 June at 12:38 I asked the following

      “Please explain & define your sweeping broad brush of “worldly notions, links and associations” – what do you mean by this ? what things do you include in it ? where are you referring to from the Bible ?”

      Anon 8 June at 20:52

      You now say in reply that “There is nothing to explain or define.” Yet you made a sweeping statement with no clarity on what you mean, so yes there is everything to explain and define. You don’t seriously expect readers to accept what you say without the need for clarification or proper detail do you ?, or is that how EB PBCC operate, at the whim of notions that are not clearly defined or explained and that might change from one week to the next ? for that is NOT how the Christian faith operates as taught in Gods Word the Bible

      So, Anon 8 June at 20:52 – what are ‘worldly notions, links and associations’ ?

      O and in addition what do you think of the letters regarding your former leader John Hales to Brian Deck published on this blog at Anon 31 May at 21:06 and your former leader James Taylor Junior regarding his alcoholism published on this blog at Anon 1 June at 08:00 ?

      Thank you for your willingness to have dialogue

      Delete
  3. Does the PBCC have a Safeguarding policy?

    Who is the lead person in the UK PBCC who is dealing with abuse issues?

    What provision has the PBCC made to ensure that children, young people and women don't have to speak to men about intimate issues?

    Why isn't the PBCC proactive, as mainstream churches are now trying to be, in investigating and responding apologetically and supportively to everyone who has suffered detriment and harm within and outwith their fellowship over so many years?

    I'm trying to negotiate about a personal issue with the PBCC at the moment and am in touch with Neil Christie and his fellow trustees of the Horsforth Gospel Trust. I'm positive and polite in my request and responses, but it's proving an uphill struggle for me. I'm beginning to think that this is because the basic structures for recognising and dealing with detriment and harm are not in place in the PBCC at an institutional level. I worry that the PBCC may be thinking that they can leave each case to a nominated individual in the hope that things will somehow be sorted out, rather than do the serious work of facing up to the decades of detriment and harm that individual abusers and Exclusive Brethren teaching of separation have caused.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a charity the Charity Commissioners require them to have a policy and to train relevant people. Maybe they don't?

      Delete
    2. 21:54 Dream on.
      There is no such requirement and nor could such a thing be imposed on them.
      Furthermore, they don't belong to associations
      or institutions.

      Delete
    3. Oh yes they are required: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-children-and-young-people

      Delete
    4. I have been out of the Peebs for too long to know what policies they might have in place today. However the comments of Anon 4.32 sum up perfectly their attitude when I was in. "No need.... Everything above boaord and in order. We follow God's word..." etc
      In other words these thing only happen in the world, not in the assembly, therefore precautions that the world might have to take are not necessary for the brethren. Some commentators on here seem not to realise that any organisation that deals with children is required to have a safeguarding policy, even if they think that it will never be needed.
      Unfortunately those that think they don't need such things often turn out to require them most. How can having a policy be against God's and be setting yourself up to be better than other Christians? Surely those who maybe think they are too good to need such things are guilty of considering themselves "better".


      Ricardo

      Delete
  4. What a nasty little attack here.
    If any of you are without sin, go ahead and throw the first stone.
    I personally object to the above comments which imply hidden cases of abuse.
    Furthermore, none of us have a right (including 08:57) to fabricate such a thing.
    This has the stench of a witch hunt, but the only witch here is the one doing the hunting. Shame on the treacherous hypocrites here and hands off the nice PBCC.

    A sinner saved by grace

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'If any of you are without sin, go ahead and throw the first stone.' So on what basis do the PBCC 'withdraw' from people? Is Anonymous 18.15 suggesting that the PBCC are without sin?

      My bible says 'all have sinned'....and that includes Bruce Hales and his deceitful father John, who wrote the following...

      18/11/65
      To Brian M Deck
      Motueka

      I have sinned against you and your wife and household and the saints and the assembly in Motueka at the meetings in May. My course has not been in the Spirit but in the flesh and there has been much transgression, but the things that weigh on me are these.
      The way in which the status and exercises of the assembly in Motueka were set aside and not given any place to.
      Much that was offensive in speaking and unbecoming was allowed in the meetings. I think in particular of the way I spoke to one brother concerning his contribution to the special collection. This was wholly anti-Christian and grievously injurious to the brother.
      There were references to two other brothers concerning their private income, one for being small and one for being large. Besides a direct transgression against the brothers, it brought in the spirit of the world and commerce and worldly advantage and the ridiculing of a saint of God.
      I am ashamed of the way I spoke to your wife at the family table. I was expressing my judgement which I now see to have derived from the flesh and not of the Spirit. I’d transgressed most grievously.
      I transgressed against you too in having part in commercial meetings in your house at the time of the meetings. It is clear too that the interference in your business matters was a transgression on my part.
      I am appalled as I think of the kind of [………….] I have allowed in the assembly and among the saints in contrast to the spirit of the men who have laboured and lived among you and live yet.
      I am horrified at the dishonour to the Lord and to His assembly as the kind of alien spiritual conduct this has been so active in the (holy) things of God. I am grieved at the pain and suffering I have inflicted on the saints.
      I am under discipline for my course but I desire to convey something to you to put right in some way the awful wrong I have done.
      (Signed) John S Hales

      Delete
    2. If John Hales never sinned since the age of 12, is it a sin for him to say he sinned when he didn't sin? Maybe Leonardo can help - this dilemma is weighing heavily upon me.

      RLS

      Delete
    3. PBCC readers might enjoy reading the following to:-

      Part 1

      Margaret Wilson
      Tunbridge Wells, England
      December 21, 2002
      JTJr's alcoholism: For use in meetings with Exclusive Brethren
      (JTJr was my father's uncle; hence I shall call him "Uncle Jim") Uncle Jim started drinking socially taking his children to restaurants and buying them alcoholic beverages. Sadly, the children of alcoholics are often alcoholics too and Consie Hales was in this category. Uncle Jim was a shy man and gradually found that a few drinks "helped" him through meetings. Brethren were not used to seeing the effects of alcohol in one another because they tended to drink in moderation or not at all. However, Uncle Jim was hospitalized in 1965 due to the effect of alcohol on his liver. Ben Taylor, James Taylor, Mina Taylor and the Gaisford twins from Luton knew of this fact and kept it very much to themselves for fear of what it might do to the Brethren movement. Meetings became riotous, a change from the more starchy fare, and were seen by only a few as the advanced stage of alcoholism. New rules were made more frequently, most notably being the one telling the women to wear their hair down as a sign of affection for him (Jim Taylor). Like robots, and under threat, we complied.
      'The system' hotted up at the end of the '60's and Aunt Renee, Uncle Jim's second wife, found his behaviour embarrassing. More frequently, when Uncle Jim went away on a ministerial tour, she would decline to go saying she wasn't feeling well. Without her influence, Uncle Jim's behaviour worsened. The meetings at Aberdeen were a case in point. Aunt Renee stayed in New York while Uncle Jim 'let his hair down' at Aberdeen, openly displaying vile behaviour including going to bed with MK. I spent Christmas 1969 in Australia and watched him and Consie drinking at the home of W Bruce Hales until they were bleary eyed. Aunt Renee did not come on this trip either. Uncle Jim flew first class where alcoholic beverages were free. It was on this trip that I met one of John Hales' sons born on 26 June 1950, my birthday. When I was concerned with JTJr’s drinking in Sydney, Australia, I phoned home and spoke to my father about it. He wasn’t concerned then because the Brethren weren’t concerned. My father was a system supporter all the way. He did nothing by halves. It took learning from Renee Taylor of her pain regarding MK and of her concern about Jim’s alcoholism to stop my father in his tracks. After that he did his best to seek justice. For this I am fervently thankful or I would still be locked in a mindless system of error.



      Delete
    4. Part 2

      After Aberdeen the Ks went to stay with Uncle Jim. Stanley McCallum, AB Parker and Mr Hoyt had been withdrawn from by Uncle Jim over the phone. My mother was troubled about what was going on and phoned Uncle Jim. Aunt Renee answered and poured out her feelings telling my mother she was torn between her fears about alcohol and his claims that the Lord was telling him what to do. My mother told this to my father who went to see his uncle about getting a doctor. Uncle Jim wouldn't see him but Aunt Renee gladly reiterated what she had said to my mother. My father then went to see James III who suggested withdrawing from his father and went round to see him. Uncle Jim convinced James that his ministry was in the 'Pauline line' or equal to that of the Apostle Paul. Dad went to see Ben Taylor who willingly acknowledged his father's illness and resulting conduct.
      My father had been careful not to answer our phone in case he was withdrawn from over the phone. That Saturday, August 22 1970 Uncle Jim showed up at Nostrand Avenue meeting room as sober as a judge. Dad opened the meeting by saying, "Certain matters have come to our attention which we can no longer ignore." Uncle Jim said, "He says I need a doctor, he needs a doctor, I withdraw from you, Bill." When Dad proceeded to state the case, Uncle Jim ordered his (Dad’s) supporters to leave. Only one or two left. The rest wandered about the room, conducted mini-conversations or cried aloud. The execution of AB Parker and Mr Hoyt who had obtained the tapes of the Aberdeen meetings was still fresh in our minds and we knew that something was awfully wrong. New York was split down the middle. The suffering in those families who had lost members and friends was terrible. Those who decided for Uncle Jim were instantly locked behind the wall of separation and were denied the truth.
      The first thing my father did after the New York split was to go round to the Pacific Street Brethren, Andrew Robertson, Mr Hoyt, Mr Parker and as many others he could remember and try to put matters straight with them. He met with nothing but love and forgiveness which he found humbling.
      When EB’s apologize to us for harsh treatment, they are actually un-doing JTJr’s ministry. It was he who taught this harshness, which defies the laws of nature. While undermining his ministry on one hand, they call him the ‘elect’ on the other hand. This is double-talk and is actually dishonest.
      Ben Taylor's son, John, was in England on that fateful day and was encouraged to shun his parents. He went to live in the basement of his grandfather's house where an ample supply of whiskey had been stored. It was only a matter of time before he saw the excessive drinking and went home to his family. Uncle Jim died in October 1970 at the age of 70. His biggest crime is not his alcoholism but the cruel division of families strewn across the earth. Those who stay (in the EB’s) do so because of Fear, Finance, Family, Friends

      Delete
    5. I worry when people say this is a fabrication. This is no fabrication. Nor is this a witch hunt. I know of many cases sadly and I understand some research has uncovered a considerable number. No doubt you will discount this though.
      James

      Delete
  5. An excellent broadside from Anon 18:15
    It really is a bit rich for sinners to be lobbing stones at sinners.
    Humble pies are again freely available at our stalls.
    Back to the drawing board?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hidden cases of abuse? Sorry pal, anything but hidden, and rife with abuse. Is there anything the PBCC doesn't try to cover up?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous31 May 2015 at 20:22 says "It really is a bit rich for sinners to be lobbing stones at sinners.
      Humble pies are again freely available at our stalls.
      Back to the drawing board?"

      Shows how utterly ludicrous the exclusive brethren "separation" issue is. .




      Delete
  6. PBCC's new motto "The only mainstream church that can cover up abuse with a hamburger"!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Questioner1 June 2015 at 16:40

    People who make the sort of crass comments such as those made by the PBCC supporters demonstrate a complete lack of understanding and sympathy with the victims of abuse. Jesus Christ had a suggestion: tie a millstone to abusers and throw them into the deepest sea.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The strong denials by PBCC advocates here makes me worried they're trying to cover up here. Are they?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I think so sadly. I have heard a few stories that would suggest that that is exactly what they did and are doing.
      James

      Delete
  9. Just watching a doco on young people deciding whether or not to leave the FLDS and leave their families (and sexual abuse) behind. Interesting to watch some devotees shaking their heads and refusing to believe their leader (Warren Jeffs)could be guilty of sexual abuse.

    As I sit and watch, I look forward to the day when Exclusive Brethren leaders similarly sit in jail for their crimes. But I also fear for those disciples left behind who shake their heads and say 'all lies' just as so many of our relatives did after being told of the alcoholic womaniser's behaviour at Aberdeen. Although those Exclusive Brethren advocates referred to above can be pains in the ass, I fear for how they will cope when their beliefs are exposed for the vile evil that they are, and realise that they are part of a vile hating cult and not a Christian- or God-loving community as they thought. It's very sad and I don't know how these victims will cope.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Curious. Focus schools have extensive safeguarding policies, but not their local meeting trusts. Are the School policies just for show?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can a PBCC member/supporter tell us what 'CEO approved music' is? Evidently it's the only music that can be played on the OneBus service that takes PBCC children to their Focus Learning Trust Schools (often many miles).

    Strangely I read on PBCC's own website, that RRT bands are publicly covering songs originally written and performed by homosexual artists, the late Freddie Mercury, George Michael and Elton John etc. Are these 'CEO approved' too?
    Doesn't seem to tie up with striking hymns out of the hymnbook should the writer leave the PBCC church, does it?

    One wonders if they were ever directed to disgraced PBCC Dr Mark Craddock's door for 'treatment'. Amazing that it has never come to light who directed people to go there in the first place! But I think we all know......

    As Sandie Shaw once sang in Eurovision 'In or out, there is never a doubt, Just who's pulling the strings'

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is a very interesting article; I wonder what it's trying to imply.

    The fact remains, there isn't any substantiated claims of sexual abuse to do with the church. Sure, members may have assaulted etc, like (sadly) like many members of the public, but not associated with the church. The only person I know (Within the church) who was subjected to a sexual assult was attacked by an outside person.

    Post proof, not lies like the Daily Mail, and then people will take notice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would suggest you look into the cases of Lindsay Ronald Jenson.

      http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sect-man-jailed-for-sex-abuse-of-girl/2007/02/16/1171405446758.html

      And Clive Allen Petrie

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2975741/Plague-of-sex-abuse-in-church-alleged

      There's the proof. Sadly there are others, it's just that these two came instantly to mind. The trouble with the PBCC is that they cover up stuff even within their own ranks. Bruce Hales knew of at least one of these cases, but refused to do anything about it.

      Ooops, doesn't look good for a PBCC 'Man of God' does it?

      Delete
    2. Then only recently there was Glen Gulley of Reading, Berkshire.

      http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/church-teen-admits-disgusting-assault-4209602

      It's about time the PBCC and those blinkered adherents within it started taking notice. Are you all stupid?????????

      Delete
    3. As soon as you get near the truth, the deceitful bastards disengage, both in here and in attempting to resolve long outstanding issues of harm and detriment with Gospel Hall trustees.

      Delete
    4. Anon 4th June 11.22 posts 'Post proof, not lies like the Daily Mail, and then people will take notice'

      So we post the proof but sadly take no notice. Gulley of Reading's case was particularly disturbing as the PBCC mother of the 4 year old girl sexually abused by Gulley pleaded for lenience for him in the court.

      Any 'normal' mother would want him locked up and the key thrown away.

      Absolutely no comments from PBCC supporters on JSH's letter of apology, or on a close relatives recall of the late, alcoholic, womaniser JT Jnr's life.

      WHY?

      Delete
    5. Answers please not EB nonsense9 June 2015 at 17:07

      Yes, the silence is deafening!

      Delete
    6. Well over a week now and no acknowledgement from PBCC supporters of the evidence of sexual abusers within their ranks.

      How sad that like ostriches, they bury their brainwashed heads in the sand rather than accept the hard facts. The limited internet access they have makes sense, I mean does Bruce Hales want them to read that even he was implicated in some of these cases? Tell him a brother is molesting brethren girls and he responds with lawyers letters telling you to stop 'pestering' him.

      Some 'Man of God' that is.

      Delete
    7. No reaction either to Margaret Wilson's letter about her relative JTjunior's behaviour or John Hales letter confessing his sin.
      It is of course difficult to defend the indefensible but the silence speaks volumes.

      Delete
    8. Every day I look in here to see whether the original poster 4th June 11:22 acknowledges truths about PBCC sex offenders, but like every PBCC member, the minute truth surfaces they run a mile.

      I see the RRT are now specializing in spraying people with colours. Get plenty of yellow in for your own members!

      Delete
    9. Jenson, Petrie and Gulley, recent Plymouth Brethren Christian Church sex offenders. Put their pictures on your sycophantic website, PBCC. Named and Shamed.

      Delete
    10. 'Anonymous4 June 2015 at 11:22

      This is a very interesting article; I wonder what it's trying to imply.

      The fact remains, there isn't any substantiated claims of sexual abuse to do with the church. Sure, members may have assaulted etc, like (sadly) like many members of the public, but not associated with the church. The only person I know (Within the church) who was subjected to a sexual assult was attacked by an outside person.

      Post proof, not lies like the Daily Mail, and then people will take notice'.

      WE DID, YOU DIDN'T.

      Delete
    11. Does the "church" have child protection policies in place to deal with allegations that are made?
      All mainstream churches (which the EB/PBCC claim to be) have clear policies to deal with sexual abuse claims, unsubstantiated or otherwise.
      It would be reassuring if the EB posted proof that such policies are in place.

      Delete
  13. Those churches that adopted a policy of total openness about their past abuses (physical, sexual, emotional and psychological) have gained a lot of respect by doing so. The Methodist Church is to be commended for its decision to commission an independent audit.

    The Roman Catholic Church, by contrast, began by denial and cover-up, and this damaged its reputation even more than the original abuses did. In some countries whole flocks of congregations voted with their feet and abandoned the church. Seminaries for training priests suddenly found themselves empty. Some of the damage has been repaired by subsequent openness, but a lot of trust is still to be rebuilt.

    The Hales Brethren in the UK committed themselves to openness as part of their settlement with the Charity Commission. That was put on paper more than a year ago. Has anyone yet seen any practical evidence of it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe in any of the trash in this article.
      Very cheap attempt to accuse people.

      The whole thing has been used here against the PBCC
      without any foundation whatsoever.
      People who write like this, often have unresolved
      issues in their own lives and obviously get some
      kind of a warped satisfaction from digging dirt.

      Delete
    2. That's fine! I also don't believe any of the trash spouted by con-man supreme Bruce Hales! There's no satisfaction in finding about this stuff, let me assure you! In fact I wish in a way it was buried and not dug up, as that's what we would like to believe. Sadly the FACTS of may cases show otherwise.

      Delete
  14. I'm confused if people are members of this cult, sect, religion whatever people may call it and are commenting on here is that not a sin!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you not heard, "none"? Hales Brethren now believe they are sin-free and that Paul never sinned. An HEB chap from Swindon UK told my hubby Mark that last March when he attended a preaching. (Yes, he WAS let in to the preaching when he just turned up without phoning, and yes he is exEB. He is also a tiger for punishment.... but he wanted to see if they would let him in.)

      But perhaps it's only the Swindon HEB that have been blessed with this insight/bollocks? I don't know, and I'm afraid I don't care much. The blasphemy and complete lack of even LOGIC these beliefs entail, just isn't something I can even be bothered spending time over.

      But anyway, I thought you might like to know that HEB can now do or say anything that takes their blessed fancy, and they will still be beyond the point of sinning. Allegedly. Or perhaps the chap who said it had had a skinful? ...Oh no, that wouldn't work, because another HEB came over and backed him up, when Mark incredulously asked him if he'd heard aright.

      Delete
  15. Oh, that explains why it's OK for them to throw stones then!

    RLS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, lovely 'sinless' stones they throw, in a lovely 'sinless' manner. Bizarre.

      Delete
    2. Well at least it's scriptural.
      Proverbs 30 v 12

      1 2 Mini

      Delete
    3. 1 2 Mini
      Do you think this scripture might apply in any way to the current generation of the EB /PBCC bearing in mind that it has never judged the filthiness that took place in Aberdeen in July 1970?

      Delete
    4. I don't know--verse 2 probably describes me the best.
      I suppose the question is how God sees it. I doubt Taylor's antics have much to do with whether or not some are washed. It seems that a "generation" or group that attributes blanket coverage cleanliness to itself is almost certainly mistaken while individuals with direct personal faith are those clean in Gods view. I mean the last time I checked, it seemed rare or non existent that saved people go about spouting that "we" are all clean and saved due to some external association or other.
      I don't know if you get my drift, this is just what occurred to me as I read the whole of Proverbs 30.

      1 2 Mini

      Delete
    5. I read the whole of Proverbs 30 before making the above comment as I have long since realised the importance of scriptural context rather than isolating verses to support a particular viewpoint.
      However I am grateful to you for highlighting Proverbs 30. After reading it
      verses 5 and 6 are worth repeating.
      "Every word of God is pure. He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar."

      Delete
    6. Yes, there seems to be several relevant comments in the chapter.

      Verse 15 The leech hath two daughters: Give, give

      1 2 Mini

      Delete
  16. And it was verse 20 that led me to the chapter after reading the post by Deb.

    "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness"

    I find it hard to believe that they think they are sinless, and I wonder how widespread this plague is amongst them.

    1 2 Mini

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a small step from saying John Hales did not sin from the age of 12 to adopting the doctrine of "sinless perfection"
      "If we say we have not sinned we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." 1 John 1 verse 10.
      I would however wish to have more evidence before accepting that they think they are sinless.

      Delete
    2. One has to wonder why John Hales, considerably older than 12, owned up to sinning in the first five words of his letter to Mr Deck.

      All PBCC members should read this and then explain the 'sinless since 12' theory. Are they all really that thick?

      There's that old saying 'If you can p*ss, you can paint' Very apt now that the PBCC appear to be painting everything from faces to whole people to football changing rooms!

      When they sing 'Crown him' are they actually advertising paint?

      Dulux User

      I have sinned against you and your wife and household and the saints and the assembly in Motueka at the meetings in May. My course has not been in the Spirit but in the flesh and there has been much transgression, but the things that weigh on me are these.
      The way in which the status and exercises of the assembly in Motueka were set aside and not given any place to.
      Much that was offensive in speaking and unbecoming was allowed in the meetings. I think in particular of the way I spoke to one brother concerning his contribution to the special collection. This was wholly anti-Christian and grievously injurious to the brother.
      There were references to two other brothers concerning their private income, one for being small and one for being large. Besides a direct transgression against the brothers, it brought in the spirit of the world and commerce and worldly advantage and the ridiculing of a saint of God.
      I am ashamed of the way I spoke to your wife at the family table. I was expressing my judgement which I now see to have derived from the flesh and not of the Spirit. I’d transgressed most grievously.
      I transgressed against you too in having part in commercial meetings in your house at the time of the meetings. It is clear too that the interference in your business matters was a transgression on my part.
      I am appalled as I think of the kind of [………….] I have allowed in the assembly and among the saints in contrast to the spirit of the men who have laboured and lived among you and live yet.
      I am horrified at the dishonour to the Lord and to His assembly as the kind of alien spiritual conduct this has been so active in the (holy) things of God. I am grieved at the pain and suffering I have inflicted on the saints.
      I am under discipline for my course but I desire to convey something to you to put right in some way the awful wrong I have done.
      (Signed) John S Hales

      Delete
    3. And in verse 8 "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"

      I don't know if it is reading too much into the meaning, but verse 8 appears to be current tense, and verse 10 past tense.

      1 2 mini

      Delete
  17. If I said current tense, I meant present tense. Too much pbspeak coolaid today...

    I trust that would link.

    12 mini

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like my post from just before the one above got lost in cyberspace. Oh well, no great loss.

      12 mini

      Delete