Tuesday, 24 May 2016

When a man sets himself up as God - nobody but God can do a damn thing about it.

Think about that for a moment. Better still - let me break it down for you. I am moved to consider this subject in response to the increasing number of EB /PBCC members who come on here trying to push their crazy points of view. Sadly, their arguments are always flawed. This is because their system is flawed. But was it always thus?


I've argued in the past that if (PBCC/ Exclusive Brethren founder) Darby were alive today - he would have been given the boot ages ago. Although he wanted a simpler form of religion - away from the over-organised and over-symbolized main stream churches - preferring the Baptist model where mere men from the congregation can take part in the dissemination of doctrine without the need for titles and religious garments, his church today would scare him. It is nothing like the one he envisaged and inaugurated.  


We can thank the 20th century so-called Men Of God - JT Jnr, JHS, JSH and BDH for that. Each of these leaders have become progressively corrupted in their view that they are God-like, Men of God or God appointed and therefore unimpeachable. Infallible. Watertight.


Let us be clear. No man is faultless. It is a complete folly and a denial of the human condition to say so. Men are not divine beings. They never will be. But this progressively deluded belief adds weight to the argument that absolute power corrupts.


We see today the barrow of irreproachableness being shoved that little bit further with every new so called 'man of god'. Taylor became so out of control in the end, that his tenure was cut short by his lifestyle and antics. Did God have a hand in that? Seventy is hardly an advanced age. You make the call. 


Symington ruled his flock with his strange rural values coming to the fore throughout his occupancy. Not happy until he had ground his flock down to a point where they were forced to abandon their educations and their nice residences. The only one adding to real estate assets and worth at the time was Symington himself.


Hales -the first of the Australian 'Men of God',  was desperate for power. He had had it and lost it - three times. And this time he was never going to let the opportunity go by. Not even if it meant wiping his political adversaries and fellow contenders off the face of the earth. Which he did. 


Hales of course passed on, his luck changing position only coming after a lifetime of controversy. And it was simply a matter of a bit over a decade before he shoehorned his son into the hot seat to be his successor. If you challenged that decision,  you would have,  or did get the boot on the spot. With every modern passage of 'Men of God', the losing contenders have always gotten the arse. It's the way they work. Mysterious as it is. And un-Christian.  


But with each modern MOG we see the mushrooming control, the unassailable leader ticket being pushed that little bit harder. They have engineered things to the point today, where to say a word against or query the doctrine of one of these men, is a death warrant, if you want to stay within this so called church. You are simply branded as evil and wiped off the map. Which in the spirit of Christianity, is an evil thing in itself. 


They even push the line these days that their leader does notsin! They say (he says?) that BDH has not sinned since the age of 12. Which is clearly rubbish! He's a man. All men are fallible. No man commands a total purity of thought. They even push the fine line further by calling him things like "Paul'. Which, although not blasphemous as Paul was also a man, is all part of elevating someone well beyond their staturein life


BDH pushed the theory that his father never sinned either. Which is also rubbish. He admitted to sinning several times. But Bruce is having none of it. He has spent more than a decade trying to whitewash his father's name. The whitewashing has now turned to brainwashing. They believe it. They are forced to believe it.


If a man says he is 'The Man of God' - or is Divinely appointed - or acts like he is God - as indeed Hales does - he is in many people's minds, a blasphemer. If the Brethren had a system like the Catholics where the elders appoint their leader, that would at least be honest. But they don't. They have this strange little elder-fight and those who can see inevitability looming, quietly shut up and say no more lest they leave skid marks out the door of the church, out of their home and out of their workplace. 


But the Brethren - the actual congregation, have NO say in it at all. The political bum fight is not something that anyone wants to engage in because there will be, and always are, casualties. Put your money on the wrong man and you are for the high jump. History proves this is correct. Hundreds if not thousands of decent Christian people with their lives destroyed as a result of someone, hungry for power, who does not want them around. (I fully expect someone from among our readers to list some of these names.)  


When I look at the good men who have been kicked out because a jostling leader, simply did not like them or felt they were a threat to their autonomy - I feel sad for them. Because really, they have done nothing so bad, as to warrant such a cruel and spiteful response. But that is the Brethren. They are a bloody cruel peopleEven though it was their leader who made them do it. 


They only way a so called 'man of God' can be deposed is by numbers. Vast numbers. A major uprising. Without the numbers, no Brethren revolution has a chance in hell.


Remember this. No 'Man of God' can do anything bad enough to guarantee his removal from 'office'.


This was the case with Taylor Junior. Even being caught in bed with another man's wife was not bad enough, for the powers that be to take affirmative action. They simply believed his frankly implausible excuse and got on with it. Mind you, hundreds if not thousands did walk away at that point, but not the numbers required for the remaining congregation to sit up and take action alongside them.


Which simply means that the Brethren are sitting ducks. They will do whatever they are told to do. None have the remotest chance of an individual thought. So they live in fear. Plain and simple. 


Which all begs the question, what happens next? When BDH shuffles off this mortal coil as he will, I know and you know that his son, or at very least, a close relative will be readied for the 'calling.' Readied for anointment. And if that person is called 'Garf' a lot of people are going to be seriously peeved. Peeved Peebs. Because they know that this bugger is and has been as big a sinner as it is possible to be. Even when you drill down into the ranks of the extended Hales clan, sinning is something that they are supremely adept at.  Everything from alcoholism to gambling to houses of ill-repute. And everything in between.  Pleasures of the flesh are endemic with the name of Hales. The love of money should also get a mention. 


So if you don't want your next 'Man of God' to be a man whom you know to be as dodgy as a three dollar note, I suggest dear Brethren, you start getting the numbers together now to prevent a complete bloody travesty. Because there will be blood.  A complete and utter cock-up. A utter mockery of what Darby and Co. set out to do. 


And remember, men are men. And God is God. And never the twain shall meet. Not even if someone calling themselves 'God' tells you so.    


  1. 'Garf' ? Or Gareth? https://www.linkedin.com/in/gareth-hales-86762a96?trk=pub-pbmap

  2. Who cares- as long as the surname isn't Hales. But I'd lay 100 - 1 it will be.

  3. The post clearly has some very large and glaring errors, but then, that's all we can expect from those who have turned away back to 'Egypt' (the World's broken system)
    There is no such thing as alternative truth or an easier way to follow Christ. It you are having a lovely convenient life, sipping Earl Grey in the Vicarage garden on a Sunday afternoon, better wake up pronto. When our good Lord moves, we must follow him and be adjusted. God doesn't change for us for he is a changeless Holy God.
    It is WE who must change or be left behind. Ahh how great the darkness who refuse to change for Christ's sake.

    Paragraph (2)is a sham. As with most of these posts, has been written by someone who has no intention of moving on and so is trapped into harping on about past events.
    The so called 'Good old days' are not sufficient to deal with the challenges of today's world.
    The world is a very different place today when compared with the 1800's. Just common sense really.
    Mr Darby was in fact raised-up by God and so have all those who have come after him. Just as importantly, Darby's ministry would have reflected the state of the world and the needs of the Peebs during those times. So indeed, the Lord does move on, albeit unpopular to those here who can only oppose and vainly attempt to discredit the Peebs today. Why not just throw your hands up and say to the Lord 'I COME' and have done with all your misery, darkness and countless sorrows? Come on, be real men and stop wallowing in the Poo.
    Again we come back to 'The Word is TOO HARD, who can hear it' The writer being in error, taints the whole post in with untruth and inaccuracy. So therefore it's needless for us to be too occupied with this post, as the hand of the writer is set against truth and bound to fail.

    Dave Mounter

    1. Anon 24 May at 20:20
      Dave Mounter

      As is usual with posts from Plymouth Brethren Christian Church aka Exclusive Brethren members, sadly there are a number of totally contradictory obfuscations & confusions in your comments

      1. You say – “When our good Lord moves, we must follow him and be adjusted. God doesn't change for us for he is a changeless Holy God.”

      2. You say – “The so called 'Good old days' are not sufficient to deal with the challenges of today's world.The world is a very different place today when compared with the 1800's. Just common sense really”

      3. You say – “Just as importantly, Darby's ministry would have reflected the state of the world and the needs of the Peebs during those times. So indeed, the Lord does move on”

      Anon 24 May at 20:20
      Dave Mounter

      On one hand you are trying to say that “God doesn’t change for us for he is a changeless Holy God” a statement which is correct from Biblical truth !

      Yet on the other hand you are trying to say “When our good Lord moves, we must follow him” and “the Lord does move on” !

      Can you see your confusion - Either God is changeless and doesn’t change for us, OR the Lord does move on ! You (the PBCC aka EB) can’t claim both positions because each is diametrically opposite to the other !.

      1. If God is changeless and doesn’t change for us then ‘He Does Not Move On’. Therefore confirming that the new doctrines contradictory of Gods Written Word the Bible, brought in by the PBCC EB since the time of James Taylor Senior through to Bruce Hales, are in fact worthless false teaching and not of Christ.

      2. If the Lord does “move on” (eg, bring in new doctrines contradictory of His written Word the Bible), then ‘He Is Not Changeless’ because He will have 'Changed' by the very fact He has brought in new doctrines contradictory of His already written word The Bible. Therefore, this position makes God out to be a liar because the Bible teaches that God can not contradict Himself, nor is he a liar and nor is He double minded.

      Anon 24 May at 20:20
      Dave Mounter

      You can NOT attach the name of Christ, or God, to new doctrines brought in by the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church aka Exclusive Brethren IF those doctrines disobey, contradict or twist the already written Word of God the Bible.

      Such false doctrines brought in by PBCC EB which are NOT of Christ, because they disobey, contradict and twist the already written Word of God, include the following –

      -Separation from all other Christians and Christian Churches
      -Not allowed to worship or fellowship with any other Christians
      -Not allowed to sit at the Lords Table with any other Christians
      -Not allowed to visit another Christian Church to hear Gods Word
      -Not allowed to eat or drink with any other Christians
      -Withdraw from those Christians who leave the sect
      -Divide households if a person leaves, even if that person is a Christian
      -Allow babes in arms to take communion
      -Teach that all other Christians are iniquitous
      -Teach that only the PBCC EB has the truth
      -Teach that the Lord is only free to come to the PBCC EB
      -No marriage to anyone outside the sect even if they are Christian
      -Follow a deeply sectarian separatist agenda, which God and Christ hate
      -Follow the words of leaders past and present such as James Taylor, James Taylor Junior, Symington, Bruce Hales, all of whom produce edicts which directly contradict, ignore and twist Gods Word the Bible and can not be confirmed, checked or verified through Gods Word the Bible, making the utterances of ‘these great men’ opposed to Gods Word and Christ.

      Plainly, the false teaching followed by the PBCC EB (some of which is listed above) is NOT truth and is NOT Gods teaching or will, because it can not be confirmed, checked or verified through Gods Word the Bible and directly contradicts, ignores and twists Gods Word the Bible.

    2. Dave Mounter

      JN Darby was a part of the early Brethren Movement

      Lots of people saw something in it, and joined it.
      What interests me is :-
      When & Why, did new members joining, stop?


  4. Dave, I don't know what you've been mounting but do you really think you are the only people in the world with the 'light'? And that the only true course to Christ is through the Brethren? If so, it is you that is deluded my friend. Trust me , I have moved on , but that does not mean I cannot challenge a system that treats people wickedly and sets itself up as 'the' divine arbitrator on earth. Despite I might add being wrong on countless occasions. Of course, that is of no consequence to the PBCC.

    I doubt many Peebs cannot even have a pure and direct vision of Christ because of all the man-made stuff in between. How can you worship two Gods for a start? And if this is not true, why do you all stand for BDH every time he turns up and read his 'word' like it is the bible?

    I will concede that times change for sure, but I still think Darby would get a hell of a shock today if he saw what he had started. Trust me on this , it is the 'real men' who have walked away from your iniquitous system Doug.

    This reference to Egypt all the time is laughable when we see your lot embracing more of 'Egypt' every day Doug. I never touch Earl Grey - can't stand the stuff and I don't think I have ever been in a Vicarage garden either. But I see you don't dare touch the primary subject raised here that God and man are two separate things and that man will never be GOD Doug! What say you on that topic?

    The Brethren are very good at being soothsayers but are numb and blind themselves to the reality and the cruelty of their own stupid system. Maybe it would do you good Doug to move among some real Christians for a time to see the difference. Instead of a bunch of trapped people worshiping one man after another. I say to you Doug that the TRUTH is too hard - who can hear it!

  5. Do you see Demas coming into this, in some way?


  6. The usual, uneducated-baboon post from a Peeb:

    “turned away back”

    He means “turned back”.

    “It you are having a lovely convenient life”

    Should be “ “IF you are having...”

    “how great the darkness who refuse to change”

    “FOR those who refuse”

    “As with most of these posts, has been written by someone”

    “IT has been written”

    “taints the whole post in” <”taints the whole post IN?” WTF drugs are you on?>

    But apart from all that, consider this:

    “he is a changeless Holy God”
    “the Lord does move on”

    I suggest that your average Peeb, being under constant subjection to a tangle of Victorian English and twisted logic, is no longer capable of expressing the simplest of arguments in a cogent manner.

    “Dave Mounter”, you would be wise to avoid trying to use grown-up language, for clearly you do not possess the intellect of a grown up. Instead, try and tell us what you mean in words you feel comfortable with, words that you fully understand. You might like to start like this:

    “My name is Dave and I am confused”.

  7. To Doug and others - the thing I would like you to comment on and address is this fallacy that every appointment that happens in the Brethren is 'raised up by God'. I have seen the fallout and the flotsam of a new MOG and it's not pretty. Do you want us to name names? Good men flung out because ONE man with a lust for (absolute) power didn't like the fact that they could/should be the next leader? Instead of them.

    It's so easy to brand anyone that gets in your way as 'someone who has turned back to Egypt.' This is the overwhelming problem with the Brethren. They treat people wickedly and then fail to address the true reasons for their actions. It suddenly becomes all 'divine intervention' when God had nothing to do with it.

    For example the victims of Brethren pedophiles are dismissed with a wave of the hand and the suggestion is always made that their claims are a sham. The men who have been thrown out for being a perceived 'threat' to an aspiring Brethren leader are immediately branded as evil. Despite doing nothing wrong. Children are poisoned against their parents and any challenge is flogged through the courts. I witnessed two such cases where the father won the right to see his children, and won the case, but the Brethren's frantic brainwashing of the children meant they never saw them again anyway.

    I say to you Doug and Co. you have pushed thousands of people out into 'Egypt' and then you try and make it sound like it was their idea.

    Until the Brethren wake up and start telling the truth there will be no advancement of these people. You are as blind as you can be and will never hear the truth. Your injustices are cruel and not Christian. And if none of that is true Doug, why did you apologise to hundreds, if not thousands of people in 2003 for your bad decisions? Again we saw that old Brethren arrogance, where people had to accept your hasty and badly couched apology and come back at once- or remain in the 'darkness' that YOU had placed them in. Nothing is sincere about you people. And you wonder why we don't forget.

    You wonder why we have not 'moved on'. Well let's take your family and your job from you Doug, throw you out with nothing, and see if you don't develop some abiding resentment. Trust me, that sort of injustice Doug lasts a lifetime. Meanwhile the Brethren have - 'MOVED ON!'

    Your failure to address any issue honestly is the thing at stake here Doug. And that's the truth!

  8. Let it be known that the Government of Egypt has instructed lawyers to seek damages against the so called Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (Exclusive Brethren) for defamation and slander concerning the Egyptian State.

    Office of the Egyptian Ambassador to the United Kingdom

  9. Let me - in the spirit of putting things right - start the list of leading brothers who were 'put out' because they were a perceived threat to those who were pushing their own ticket to be leader of the EB/PBCC.

    Many have been thrown out after these persons achieved their high office of 'Man of God' - almost as an act of revenge. At best - as a threat removal. In some cases the Brethren dreamed up another issue to give the deed some credibility- but the underlining motive was plain.

    (I am happy to be put right if any of these are actually incorrect.)

    George Maynard - Barbados (After JT Jnr Death. Syminton was apparently savage in this regard)
    Will McKillop (Chicago)
    Roy Hibbert (Calgary)
    A.B. Parker (NY)
    Elliot Hoyt
    Lloyd Paskewitz.(Nominated after Symington died. Nominated to take the Winnipeg Levitical meetings. Roy Symington intervened and said "No My father has nominated John Hales to do this".)
    Ron Fawkes (Symington Era)
    Bob Thorncroft
    Alan Gadsden (Although he went back to die there. Gadsden was perhaps not a contender for MOG but was a threat to the Hales nevertheless- being extremely well indoctrinated, and a fine speaker. He was also incredibly arrogant - a trait that may be present in his successor.)

    Who else have we missed here - there are hundreds.

  10. Going back to 1959/60 JT junior had G R Cowell removed because he was in the way of him becoming leader. The idea of World leader is not found anywhere in scripture. Leadership/ Eldership (plural)is to be found in local churches and that is where the Exclusive Brethren are and have been wrong in putting power (absolute power) in the hands of one fallible man.

    1. As I understand, Leadership / Elders is always plural in Scripture

      What about The Recovery?
      We are told some things about end times, but if the Recovery is single and so important, is it spoken of in Scripture?


  11. Q. When does Dave Mounter?

    1. Dunno. When JT Junior's finished with ker, sorry typo, her?

  12. Is he a real person? Or maybe a Peeb a non de plume? A Peeb baiter.

    1. It's only Peter Trevvett again with yet a different name.

  13. You know, it always amazes me. It doesn't matter whether they come on here - which they do - or whether they are 'apologizing' for their past sins, but they always use the 'Don't engage, give your one sided, Hales sanctioned, warped view, insult a few ex-Peebs and then run like buggery' strategy.

    Where is one Peeb who is prepared to debate an issue or two (we can give you hundreds) honestly, without just providing a smattering of irrelevant scriptural references and a few MOG sayings and then running for the hills?

    I'm thinking in future - it might be good policy to just ignore them. They are like a six year old bully who goes around picking fights but always turns up with his father. (And I don't mean the one upstairs).

    If there is one word that describes the modern Peeb - it is gutless. If I can use more than one - they don't front up to anything, unless they have a legal team and a PR team and a few other spin doctors in the wings. But confront anything themselves? Nah! It's out of their league. So much for their conviction. They know it's shaky to start with.

  14. Among those named above as having been kicked out for being possible threats to various Moggies dominance, there are at least two of them whom I suppose would have been worse "Little Caesar's" than what we got. Namely Lloyd Paskewitz and Ron Fawks. Most of the others were before my time or unknown to me.
    In any case, I think that any of the men named would have been monsters in their own right due to the fact that the most glaring error of the entire system is the very idea that they are meant to have a "leader".
    Anyone who believes that they are collectively the church and that their leader is somehow special is deluded, so that they very acceptance or aspiration to Mog status dictates that they will be bad actors in such a position.

  15. When BDH was presiding over his first “universal occasion” he used the phrase “these great men” more frequently than usual, perhaps because he was just establishing his credentials as the universal leader. He made some remarkable claims about them. For instance, in Volume 6 page 186 (Leicester, 15 June 2002) he says, “See, with these great men you really, you couldn't distinguish between the Holy Spirit and their spirits, I don't think.”

    Later in the same meeting, page 196, he says, “You wonder at that, but you can see it, there's no question that when we got close to these great men, we knew that we were in the presence of Christ, there was no question of it, our beloved, and Mr. Symington, our beloved brother.”

    That came rather close to attributing to “these great men” a divine status and authority.

    To compare Mr Symington with Christ, you would need to have a pretty low opinion of Christ.

    1. Ian quotes Mr B. Hales as saying: "you couldn't distinguish between the Holy Spirit and their spirits, I don't think.”

      Really? The dear EB must be spiritually blind to accept that statement.

      What does the Bible say? "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, self-control." (JND version).

      Did the behaviour and teaching of Symington and John Hales show these features? I don't think so.

    2. Phil T
      'The fruit of the Spirit.....' does not speak of separation / separation from evil, does it?

      I puzzle that a group that claims they follow the Bible, and are Christian, and are the church, and the Spirit is with them, etc....
      Yet they make so much of separation (which leads to cruelty and destruction)
      and which is not listed as a fruit of the Spirit

      Can anyone, particularly their supposed supporters, help me understand


  16. Difficult to envisage the Holy Spirit of God using words like 'bum' and 'bastard', going into rehab, bedding a whore from Pinner or molesting minors.

  17. Some years ago I posted a piece online in which I wondered whether the Exclusive Brethren, led by Bruce D Hales, would ever teach their members about William Tyndale (1494-1536) - undeniably one of the ‘great men’ of the Christian church. In 2008 I received a message from Bruce D Hales assuring me that he had given instructions that the Brethren were to be taught about “the English martyrs”.

    I’m never quite sure to whom Bruce D Hales is referring when he talks about “these great men” and I’m confused by the epithets he uses - “our beloved brother”, “our beloved” and so on; but I think it’s a great shame if he doesn’t also know and honour the great men of the Christian tradition from outside the Exclusive Brethren’s own short ecclesiastical inheritance. There’s a lot to be learned from Tertullian, Eusebius of Caesarea, Ephrem the Syrian, Augustine of Hippo, Alcuin of York, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and many, many more.

    J N Darby understood this. If you look at the titles of the books he bought for his private library, you’ll see that he chose to own and read their published works. I was delighted recently, when reading a contemporaneous account of J N Darby's early 'preaching' in homes around Dublin in the 1830s, to discover that he was propounding a teaching that the Psalms represent the unifying of the divine and the human voice in Christ. This was a proposition he borrowed from Augustine of Hippo in the 390s (see Enarrationes in Psalmos and De doctrine Christiana).