Loading...

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

What really happened to the Brethren in 1965 and who really did what. The greatest rift in their history after 'separation from the world' ripped them to shreds.

Kindly forwarded by 'The Fairfield Kid'

A correctly edited version of the below document is available here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4fla0l7tbbbeu0j/ASSEMBLY%20MEETING%20WBH%20%20JSH%20October%201965%20%281%29.doc?dl=0


An alternative heading to this would be OBEDIENCE TO A SUPERIOR WISDOM' - the global reintroduction of the Hales Commercial System and the whitewashing of Brethren history by Bruce D. Hales.

The current world leader of the Exclusive Brethren or PBCC, Bruce D. Hales, has been at pains for much of his recent tenure, to airbrush the history surrounding his family and the era in which they overstepped the mark so extraordinarily as they sought to take over Brethren lives and involve themselves in their businesses. 

Bruce D. Hales said it didn't happen, that the Brethren were wrong at the time, that they didn't get it and that his father and uncle needed to be exonerated for their crimes against the church and the people in it. But the following document details in extraordinary detail what really happened in their own words. And not just about the system itself but their general rude and un-Christian behaviour. 


Much has been said of late about this latest Global Commercial System that takes up so much of the PBCC Brethren's time and focus. The sad thing is that when it all came to a climactic head in 1965, when certain 'brothers' stood up and proclaimed that this was not right - the detail and the truth were both lost in the ensuing years. Indeed, many Brethren heavyweights today would not have been born when this took place. 

To paraphrase this debacle, two young men in Sydney and their cohorts which included Alan Gadsden in Melbourne and others, decided to get involved in people's businesses and demanded to know what people were worth and how they ran their enterprises. They ridiculed people in church - standing them up and demanding all sorts of personal and fiscal information in public for the entire assembly to hear and witness. As one who attended several of these sessions with the Hales Brothers in full swing, I was as a teenager, astounded by the very rudeness of these men's demands and their approach to finding out what they wanted to know. 

There was the added 'thing' at the time - as we all know, anyone who speaks against a Man of God, is assured of 'being shown the door'. But both Bruce Hales Senior and his brother John were mildly contemptuous of their leader of that day if their remarks are anything to go by. JSH said on more than one occasion '“don’t quote Mr. Taylor to me”!  And his Brother Bruce said that 'Taylor needs to listen to him." 

It was an onslaught that had never been witnessed before and effectively reduced their church meetings to something resembling a coliseum. A circus. People sat on the edge of their seats praying fervently that they would not be 'picked on'. But the Hales were not interested in the rank and file Peebs - they wanted to identify every man who had money, who had a business and what they were doing with it. And they did so with all manner of underhanded methods including putting 'their' people into businesses, literally as spies, with a regular reporting brief back to the Hales'. 

They were grubby times and this had little to do with what their church should have been about. They had crossed a line in scripture - and in the context of any church operation, in that they went from saving souls to exploiting people. And today it has all been reintroduced and reinvigorated with their son and nephew taking their blueprint for a commercial system all the way through from introduction to completion in 10 short years. 

The Hales brothers believed that without money - you have no power. W.B. Hales said at that time about their leader of the day - their man of God -  "even a Taylor will deteriorate with nothing to do all day, you haven’t got any power."

Maybe the Brethren will learn much about that time and what was said by whom. The thought processes and actions are quite astonishing in some cases - but this will refute much that has been said of late within the church about the truth of the matter. Because - here it is - in black and white. This is not a fabrication or tissue of lies dreamt up by disaffected people. It is here in their own words. Recorded as it happened. By them. 

Remember that many people suffered dreadfullylosing their families and everything they owned in the aftermath of this awful passage of Brethren history, which then, and now, is something that the Hales don't give a fig about. They just want their history in it expunged. It's a big read - but very enlightening.


OUTLINE OF ISSUES AT
SYDNEY ASSEMBLY MEETING

W.B.HALES & J.S.HALES

OCTOBER 1965


Mr. Patton introduces the matter stating that it is one of the worst things we have had to deal with since the revival.

J.P.They are in a party and there would be a party of which they form the core.  There has been. …(indistinct)….. out to wreck the revival, and it emphasizes the necessity of there being a thorough enquiry to see what the devil is getting at.  Thorough enquiry has been proceeding and there should be enough now to establish and tell the brethren in view of a righteous judgment being arrived at and pronounced to the assembly.  As the matter has been raised, what the brethren know has been prominent in the exercise has been the matter of the introduction into the assembly of the spirit of commerce and things pertaining to it.  The scriptural basis of a judgment of this would be John 2: 16-17 “make not my house a house of merchandise.” 

The thing began a few years ago in a certain way in certain activities which might be called “work”, and then as it developed it crystalised into a doctrine, a system of meetings, one relating to the other ------ Newcastle, Maitland, Tamworth, Armidale and other places, the idea of which was to be perfected here and launched on the world, that is the local assemblies all over the world.  Examples of this were many, the way the thing was working, particularly in Canberra and Barbados.  There are very many examples of it.

We can speak of things that we know that happened at Canberra, our brother Mr. Emtage of Barbados was humiliated and really held up to ridicule and we have already been told by the same brother who was humiliated at Malvern Hill.  Much entered into those meetings at Canberra, which may come under another heading, particularly, that of party activities as to how the meetings were arranged and how invitations went out, as to how brothers were directed to do certain things, which are almost a perfect example of party operations.  The brethren will be free, subject o the Spirit being in control, to speak including the two men who are immediately in mind.  We have a responsibility before God to be clear in everything we do or say.  Devonport was another example of this thing.  Our brother Mr. W.B.Hales, just before the meeting was due to start went out having told the local brethren to alter the seating arrangements.  At these meetings a brother was told to stand up and state what was his net worth, then there was a general order given for all these net worth, people who exceeded a certain amount were told to stand up and detailed questions were asked as to the state of the flocks.  That was Devonport.  Brisbane, we have already been told how father and son were closely questioned about their business relationships and how humiliation entered into that, I refer to our brother Hislop, Mr. Harry, in relation to him, all the employees of R.S.Harry who had mortgages on their homes were told to stand up.  Quite a large number did, about 14 or 15.  Mr. Harry was asked was he prepared to discharge all these mortgages, which he undertook to do.  Other things of a similar nature were brought into those meetings.  Bendigo, three months back, our brother Archie Prince’s business matters in relation to his sons were freely discussed and he also was directed to do certain things.  At the same meetings our brother Mervyn Sheppard was given a job in another brother’s business, he was to start at once.  Mr. Angus Quick was also asked what he was worth.  At the Barbados amongst many other things, Mr. Daniel Pienaar, Mr. Kenneth Rosenbury and Mr. Cecil Kennard were asked to stand up and were brought forward as samples of successful businessmen.  Men who could handle big operations, (Mr. Pienarr) He is a man who controls some 150 shops so he is a good assemblyman on that account, that is the inference.

Under this heading, we have last week spoken of how the thing has been in evidence in this City and one feature should be especially drawn attention to, that is how the introduction of so called management control has operated to the breaking down of the divinely instituted relationships.  Young men have been installed in prominent positions in one business and maybe others.  They were told that they were to report direct to one of these two men W.B.B or J.S.H.  Those reports including movements of their employer. 

D.J.MWhat brothers would confirm that Mr. Patton?

J.P.Robert Reid and Harold Tchappet.

H.T.Not recorded.

J.PYou were asked to report to one of these two men.  Now Robert Reid will you speak?

R.R.When I was taken on by the firm, it was clearly said before us all that I was to report to Mr. Bruce Hales on everything that took place.  It was not specifically said that this related to the employers.  Another time I was told personally that the report should take the form of, firstly, Political matters, which related to the personnel, the management, and anything that took place within the political sphere.  Secondly, on things that were not done through the whole procedure on the requirements that I had to do.  Three were times I was asked  -------.  I never specifically reported on the movements of my employers except in a few instances regarding changes in the business early this year when I was asked to do so, but when I did report, in the minority of cases, I would say, there were questions asked as to what the employers were doing following instructions given by Mr. Hales.

J.P.There were some questions asked as to what they were doing.

R.R.Yes.  One example was that they were told that they should not be inside the building, they should be out selling, and I was specifically asked were they doing that.

J.P.Does that satisfy your question Dr. Martin?  Also in this connection not only were business matters brought into the assembly, but what could be legitimately arranged meetings to speak of business matters but were colored by what pertained to the assembly.  Reference as made to the assembly and persons were good assembly men.  One such was a meeting in our brother Alex McDonald’s premises and some of the things said there should be known to the brethren because they had a distinct bearing on the whole matter.  These are some extracts by W.B.Hales at the sales meeting of Metal Protectives Company on 2nd September, 1965… (as follows) –

Commerce

Reference to sales meeting at Metal Protectives Pty Ltd on 2nd September 1965.  Owner Mr. Alec McDonald.

W.B.H.You are really getting at the very essence of our strength compared to places like Melbourne or London or New York or anywhere else I know of.  We have more men in Sydney than I know anywhere else who I know are operating in their own rights.  That is, men who are prepared to put the whole of their career or livelihood in a risk venture.  The fellow that can do anything and everything is a very resourceful man.  He can be ruthless, can you follow this?  Because he knows he can do anything and he expects everybody else to do everything.  The key to an assembly is men who know how to venture out into the unknown, know how to measure the risks they are taking, and they just have that grip and perseverance that accompanies their almost blind faith that what they are doing is right and they will prove it is right. This is the same in the assembly; this is what you just can’t duplicate just by imitating.  This where we get Paul Devenish or Dean Mills who are good enough fellows but they are trying to put on an act in the meetings that same as John and I don, it does not work.  The reason it does not work is that they have never had their backs up against the wall and had to do or had to be right when everybody else is wrong.  All our victories here are victories that we have had to snatch from defeat.  You know when everybody has been against us, Jim Taylor and all thrown in.  Can you follow?  Were you to ask Jim Taylor to come along and tell you to sell your business and got rid of all your labour, that is no gospel for the future.  How are we going to get on in future if everybody who employs people is going to sell his business?   (To Mr. Emptage).  Can you follow what I am saying?

Mr. E.Yes

There were further references to Mr. Taylors, saying some years ago “sell ---sell --- sell” but he has certainly had to put his brakes on now he sees this other angle, which is what we have had here.  Man has power to satisfy all his basic needs in life, do you agree Mr. Emptage.

Mr. E.Yes

WBHEven a “Taylor” will deteriorate with nothing to do all day, you haven’t got any power.

J.P.It is well to know all these things because what we want is to just stage facts, we can have our own judgement.

W.B.H.It is no gospel at all, while Mr. Taylor realized all this and where we came I, we said “look, this doesn’t seem right because we have to live, he is 65 and we are 35, we have to provide for the testimony you see.

J.P.I would just comment here that all this is done in the name of the testimony; it makes it very very serious indeed, because it has all been done on the basis of scripture.  For instance, we start off “my Father works hitherto and I work” and “that’s the basis of what you need developed into a meeting of economics with a chairman conducting it”.  This was Barbados.  Mr. Taylor said that this was one of the most serious parts of it, was the deceptive angles of it being linked with scripture.  There are other things that could be said here, bearing on what might be the unnecessary crudeness with which certain pictures were being brought forward.  Pictures to illustrate certain facts such as “I have only been dragged in here feet first you know like a baby that comes the wrong way”.  Now the brethren have heard that kind of thing over and over again.  This is a business meeting, but you can see how necessary it is for it to be brought in here.  

W.B.H.  Continues “People won’t be forever writing to Jim Taylor or somebody else like him to ask him every conceivable question, 90% of the things he has answered, people ought to be able to answer themselves.  We never ask him a question about Sydney.  The last 5 years he has never been asked a single question about any matter.  The only thing is that he asks questions thinking that we may be wrong and then he goes away satisfied that they are right – we thought they are right.”

J.P.I think the brethren here have been deluded in believing that these men have been in constant touch with Mr. Taylor and know his mind.  He has emphasized that that is not so.

W.B.H.There is no company in scripture that is more organized than Paul and his company, so that what has happened over the last few years is that the Levitesor the priests or the elders or whatever you like to call them all over the world, are very much dovetailed together than they ever were before.  Nobody, I doubt whether even Paul had such a grasp of the details of brethren’s affairs as a few of us are having today.  Do you understand this?  The details of assemblies, meeting rooms and hall costs, and yet-----in a relatively few minds, what has been disbursed.

J.P.I again make the point, brethren, that bringing of business matters here, you see how what should legitimately be a business meeting, is just interwoven all the time with reference to the assembly, showing how much the two ideas are mixed up in their minds.

W.B.H.“This is the connection between Christ’s headship and sonship, you look at the Son, the Son can operate on His own, He does not need any directions at all, He is free, He is God manifest in flesh.  Every one of us should look as if we are almost as powerful as God in everything we do, but the secret is between the Son and the Head.

J.P.Brethren, more things might be said which show a strong line of infidelity or what is infidel in character is intermingles with this line of thinking.

D.J.M.W.B.H says towards the end “how the Lord ties the assembly up and while ever Mr. Taylor is giving all sorts of little minute rules to everybody, the Lord hasn’t really got control of the Assembly, Mr. Taylor has and he hasn’t either because he only relies on your childhood subjection.  When you can go to the Lord and think the way Mr. Taylor thinks, then you are as near to the Lord as Mr. Taylor is.  You know when you are right and you don’t have to ask him, and even if he thinks you are wrong you are going to prove to him that you are right, that is the principle of the twelve, is that clear now? And that is really what we are aiming at.  You ask me about dividing it, we cannot.  This thing must be run by somebody who really believes in it.

FINISH OF REFERENCE TO BUSINESS MEETING
AT ALEX MCDONALD’S FACTORY.

J.P.You had some concern Dr. Teiffel about something that was said in this connection at another place.

E.S.T.I had concerns as to whether there were seeds of infidelity in the line of things that was proceeding, and enquiries brought to light the summary of a conversation that was held on 24th September, at Firth Avenue, our brother Mr.Bruce was present and the question was “how one knows the mind of go about a matter, the answer is ‘by obedience to a superior wisdom, then you do not make a mistake.  By continually deriving from a superior wisdom you go up and up, you are continually searching round for someone from whom to derive superior wisdom.  As you progress you go up and up deriving superior wisdom from another source.  Finally you are in a position where you cannot find a person to drive this from.  How then do you know the mind of God?  By being in this position of obedience to a superior wisdom, what is there superior to you to derive from  God, God in Christ but you have it as being in this condition of being in obedience to a superior wisdom.  You have the mind of god, and what you think is what is what God thinks, your mind is god’s mind, a man almost becomes God.  You cannot say that a man is God, but a man almost becomes infinite wisdom.  You can find out the mind of go in yourself by reference to the inner logic of the matter.  You first decide what to do, is it right?  If so, explore all avenues and decide what is the best.  Is the finance available?  Will it make a profit etc.?  In this way you arrive at the mind of God about a matter.  

I have brought this forward because it has the elements of infidelity about it.

D.J.M.Who confirms that?

K.S.Mr. Robert Reid, Harold Tchappet, Dr. Martin, these are brothers who drew this up, and there were other brothers from other cities present.

J.P.Think of the effect on minds that have been formed against known minds.  Think also of the word in Acts, unlearned and ignorant men.

DISHONESTY IN MINISTRY


J.P.I would secondly draw attention to what has been described as “dishonesty in ministry”.  It may have come in in many ways, but I refer particularly to what transpired in 1962 in July at Southampton.  Certain things had happened here particularly in the matter of Andrew Scoular and that household, the way we handled the matter brought very prominently under the eyes of the press, this was just about a week before the meetings held with our brother John Mason in the Town Hall, which caused such a furor which the brethren will remember.  I can recall our brother then telling me very definitely, that the line of thinking with regard to children in this City was quite wrong, and he almost put it verbatim and his words were almost identical with Mr. Taylor at the Southampton meetings, as to the creational rights of father and mother, that is, both persons being equal.  Mr. Taylor’s ministry clearly shows that what we had been thinking and saying and putting into practice was wrong.  Some of us felt that, that it would be simple to accept adjustment, but our two brothers here with another came back and said “we will not accept adjustment” there has been no adjustment and proceeded forcefully to minister on that line.  That is, they knew they were doing what was wrong, it was not as if they misunderstood it, they know it.  I have spoken of that as “dishonesty” and they have both acknowledged it as such, and all can see what a handle to the enemy that would give.  Protests were made against it, and I myself felt very distressed.  Our brother knew I refused it and in Canberra I was told in the presence of a large number of brethren I was opposing the truth.  I never accepted that, sought to see him, to go into matters but he would not see me.

D.J.M.Both have said they know they were wrong.  Mr. Bruce said that at Southampton, he saw that he was wrong but his pride did not allow him to acknowledge it.  Mr. John also saw that he was wrong and that there was need of adjustment.

J.P.Did you have something else that might come under this heading?


D.J.M.There were things said that slighted Mr. Taylor, they could be brought in here.  I had a ring from Mr. Glyne Hunt at the request of Mr. Taylor.  When Mr.John Hales left for the Barbados recently, before leaving his house he said to Mr. Emtage and Mr. Leslie Corben that he would not go to Barbados unless they got rid of all domestic servants not breaking bread.  Brethren replied that Mr. J. Taylor Junior said in Jamaica that it was all right to have these servants as long as they did not sleep in the house.  Mr. Hales replied “don’t quote Mr.Taylor to me”.  Mr. Richard Emtage had said this and MR Corben and I heard them say it and my son Richard.  The thing is established on witness.  Mr.John Hales said, that was said; he said they were speaking in light vain, nevertheless he said it.  It is a reflection on Mr. Taylor “don’t quote Mr. Taylor to me”.  Mr. John acknowledges that.  He also said when he got to New York he was to ring them up to see whether they had complied with the conditions regarding servants.  Our brother forgot, he didn’t ring.  A more sorrowful thing was said by Mr. John, this was said in Barbados in Mr. Keith Hunt’s house who told me this today and also Mr. Glynne Hunt, they were both present ……  They asked Mr. John how they were getting on with the holy kiss and how Mr. Bruce was getting on with it.  Mr. John said, “the holy kiss was just another American gimmick”.  They also said in this conversation from Barbados, Mr. Lionel Emtage spoke to me and Mr. Douglas Pile, that they were present with Mr. W.B. Hales in a home just opposite Mr. J Taylor Jnr.  Mr. W.B.H said this, he made some statement and this was his remark, that “his father-in-law would say something but he had better listen to me”.  The brethren would feel the slight on Mr. Taylor in these remarks.  Perhaps I should also mention matters that came up in the meetings, it may not seem of great moment but Mr. Taylor wished it to be mentioned.  Mr. John was speaking about 1 Corinthians 11 v 33; as to waiting for one another, and he remarked that you may wait for a person who is late, but not habitually, but you may wait.  Mr. J T jnr’s comment was “this is against the ministry of J.T on ‘when the hour was come’.”  The meaning of that verse is that you wait for persons of spiritual weight.

I should say too that I have had several rings from Glasgow as to the meetings there in April of this year with Mr. W.B.Hales.  Most of this my son Richard can witness to.  There are two matters he can’t witness to but they have both been acknowledged to by the two brothers present.  What troubled the brethren at these meetings at Glasgow was the way brethren were humiliated.  Mr. George Patton was twice rebuked about a matter that had been settled 3 months before and he was greatly humiliated.  The Civil Service was belittled with reflection on Mr. John Mason and Mr. W.R.Mason.  Mr. Taylor said that no reflection should be thrown on the Civil Service.  Then he said that a brother who went from one locality to another was spoken of as a “little tyrant”.  Mr. Bruce remembers saying that.  What I am now to say is what grieved the brethren in Glasgow.  Our brother Mr. Terry Snr who has departed to be with Christ about 6 weeks ago and was well into his eighties.  Our brother was humiliated and rebuked for putting his wife in a mental home before she died 20 years ago.  Mr. W.B.H. said, “No-one in Australia would do such a thing and that the brother should have remained at home from his work and looked after his wife.  Mr. Hales went on to say in the meetings that many wrong judgments had followed in Glasgow because of Mr. Terry’s being wrong in regard of this matter, and that the lead he had given I Glasgow because of this, was wrong. Mr. J Taylor jnr said he was right in putting his wife into a mental home and the brethren in Glasgow felt that Mr. Terry did right and this aged man was humbled about it and humiliated.  Then there was the collection that was taken up for the Paris meeting room.  Fourteen brothers were named and told what to give.  Mr. Bradford was told to give 200 pounds.  He felt that this was not the right way to collect money.  The collections was introduced by Mr. W.B.H who said that he and Mr. John would give 500 pounds each. They both confirm this.  If I am saying anything that is not accurate, I hope I will be corrected.  I was told in Scotland in my recent visit there, by more than one person who said how affecting it was that this collections was started by this very generous gesture by these two brothers that they would give 500 pounds each.  Mr. John said the other night that he did not give 500 pounds for that collection.  What the brethren feel and Mr.Taylor feels was that how wrong it was to carry out a collection like that.  In the homes the conversation was lawless and anti-Christian.  In Mr. Bradford’s son’s home, they provided a meal for Mr. W.B. & J.S. Hales and Mr.Bradford’s son’s wife was told “your mother is the most miserable woman in Glasgow – your house will take you to hell and your children will be corrupted.”  Young Mr. Bradford was told “every time your father-in-law tries to give you something, spit in his face, fight with your father-in-law every time he comes, and make it so unpleasant that you won’t be able to sit down and have a meal with him.  If your father-in-law gave away some of his money he might become spiritual.”  This was all said at table before 18 brethren including some from Germany and France.  Mr. Bradford said he bought his 80-year-old house at a bargain price and paid for it in cash.  He borrowed 1,000pds from his father-in-law to make it livable, and this has been paid back.  Mr. W.B.H said it was unrighteous to take his money.  The father and mother-in-law are Mr. & Mrs. David Lawry and both are breaking bread.  

Reference to this conversation in the house was made in the meetings.  Mr.Bradford spoke to me and Mr. Bradford Jnr and his wife spoke to me on the phone and my son heard this.  Brethren feel that the principles were “rebuke not an elder sharply”, many brethren were rebuked.  The matter of Mr. Terry they feel very much.  I think that should conclude the matters at Glasgow.

PARTY ACTIVITIES

J.P.Perhaps we should speak of the party.  I was not at Canberra but it has been testified to what the meetings were arranged on the Tuesday of the week in which they were held.  W.B.H. and J.S.H and another brother directed up to about 80% of the invitations.  During the course of these meetings, these brothers rang Will Sievwright of Perth and Jack Pearson of Adelaide who were at Canberra and told them to get the Adelaide and Perth surpluses and give them to A.F.Gadsden, and that was done.

D.J.M.Just to make this a little clearer, the arrangement of those meetings, these three men practically arranged them and the two brothers here, acknowledged it.  Mr. John said it was an outright party action.  During those meetings the brothers from Adelaide and Perth were told to come to a certain house and give those surpluses to Mr. Gadsden - that they would be taken to New York.  Mr. Pearson said to his shame he did it.

J.P.They were to be taken to New York?   That raises the question of the handling of monies.  The facts are very clear, and in connection with which, one of these brothers who was there, Mr. John Hales has acknowledged deception and lying to Mr. Taylor.  As to how far we can speak I would be governed by you, Mr. Lance Hills because of possible complications.

L.S.H.think it would be wise Mr. P to restrict it as much as you can, I can’t say anything apart from that.  There could be complications if certain matters were gone into in detail, but I don’t want to stand in the way of what the Lord would have us do.

J.P.Well, I have said that Mr. W.B.H was not in America, but he was fully cognizant of what was moving, and in connection of these surpluses which were to be taken to New York and all the monies were, Mr. John Hales has acknowledged that he deceived and lied to Mr. Taylor.  I don’t know Dr. M, Mr. Pridham, Mr. Reddel how far we can give the brethren details.

D.J.M.I think if we say that we must establish it.

J.P.I am just saying what he has acknowledged.

D.J.M.Well, that may be enough.  What do brethren think - as it has been acknowledged.

R.H.PI would think it should be made clear that certain money was borrowed with intention of repayment out of future assembly surpluses, there were certain monies did not go where it was intended to go.

J.P.I think that could be said.  That monies were borrowed, all from various brothers to be repaid out of future assembly surpluses.  Money was taken to New York; Mr. Taylor was told, “This was private giving”.  It was in no way private giving.

R.H.P.Acts 11 was referred to Mr. P.

J.P. I think the brethren will have got the point of that, have you Mr. Deayton?  Brethren have not been told here.  This has happened so often.  Mr. Taylor said that the secret working of this would have to be judged.

R.S.A.The brethren from whom the money was borrowed had no idea that it was to be repaid from assembly funds.

J.P. They did not know.

R.S.A.No it was not told the brethren here.

F.R.H.The simple facts are, that the surpluses that were given for the purpose that they were intended went to that purpose up ‘til the month of July.  When Mr.W.B.H went to New York that particular surplus that was intended to go to the usual purpose, I was instructed or told by Mr. J.S.Hales to give that to Mr. W.B.H to take to New York.  I raised an objection, but I was told that it was quite in order.  The same thing applied to the August surplus, and the September was taken by the brothers that went overseas.  I might say that I feel my shame in regard to that and the monetary side has been met, that is the money has now been put to the purpose for which was intended.

D.J.M.That July amount Mr. Frank, did it go into the trust account.

F.R.H.No.

D.J.M.It did not go in and then come out?

F.R.H.No.  Nor did the August or September.  I feel this matter very much brethren, and I accept responsibility for it.

A.K.S.Do you think Mr. Patton, it would be right to ask Mr. W.B.Hales what happened to that first amount of money, 1200 pounds or so, what he did with it?

J.P.It has already intimated that these brothers are free to speak.  I was just going to ask the brethren generally to indicate the principle of the thing in hand.  What do you say Mr. Stead?

E.W.S.Yes, Mr. Patton, it is quite clear to me.

J.P.Mr. Hickson is it clear to you?

J.H.Yes

J.P.Mr. Herbert Fookes, is it clear to you?

H.F.Yes.

J.P.Were you going to speak Bruce.

L.S.H.The fact is that the saints here determined that the money was to be used for a certain purpose and that was defeated without the brethren knowing it.  It was misapplied. 

D.J.M.I think Mr. John did say at one care meeting that the money was to be given to Mr. Heaney for the Lord’s work, but he acknowledges that in the minds of the brethren would believe that it went to that fund - Mr. Heaney had - and there was deception in that.

Rem.I can recall that being said by Mr. John at the time, but I was aware that the brethren would understand that it went for a specific purpose.

J.P.Did you want Mr. Hales to answer about the specific amount Mr. Smith?

A.K.S.I think it could be left, the point as to deception has been conveyed so perhaps we could leave that.

W.B.H.(makes some unrecorded explanations regarding what was done with the money he took to New York.  Mr. Patton asked to whom was it given.  W.B.H says “to brethren”.  J.P “to what brethren?”  A.K.S. asks, “You have no documentation of that? We are dependent entirely on you, your word that you did what we may say charitable things with it.”  J.P. asks, “you gave certain specific brothers here and there – specific amounts didn’t you? Why did you do that”?  W.B.H says he distributed it to brothers in connection with meeting rooms and housing.

F.R.H.Just to be fair, Mr. John Hales assured me that this money would be used for similar purposes but my point was that it was not for the purpose for which the brethren really knew that the money was given for.  That is, it would be used for charitable purposes, which apparently it was, but it was not the purpose for which the brethren really understood here.

J.P.There was an amount given to a brother in Plainfield, would that be for the purpose that you had in mind 1,000 pounds.

A.K.S.That was from other money.

J.P.Good, that settles that.  There is a matter now you want to speak of (to J.S.H.)

J.S.H.I was only going to say Dr. M; I have no hesitation in saying that the action was unrighteous and deceitful.

INJURIOUS SPEAKING

J.P.There is now the matter of the treatment of persons.  What has been said as from Glasgow would be a sample of it, carried from this City to other parts of the world.  Whilst we have the specific details, other places could have been spoken of too, but there has been the injurious speaking and damage done to persons here.  It is felt that that should be reviewed.

D.J.M.Mr. Crutcher would possibly be an outstanding example of that in the carrying out of his duties at the depot, he has been subject to very violent speaking and Mr. Crutcher told me that sometimes Mr. Bruce Hales would call his wife in and she went away and manifestly showed her distress at it.  Our brother has been spoken to in a way most unbecoming for a believer to speak.  The use of violent language and others have had the same experience.  I think one thing should be mentioned is what took place at Council Bluffs.  Mr. John says that if anything presses on his conscience as to treatment of persons it is what took place in the house of a brother and sister there.  Mr. Bruce and he were there.  A sister was told that the devil was in her or she was the devil and Mr. Bruce ordered her out of the house.  Mr. Bruce acknowledges this.  She twice tried to speak and was not allowed to speak. It was not their house they were in, they were in another person’s house but she was ordered out.  That is so Mr. John?

J.S.H.I would think both of us ordered her out of the house Dr. Martin. I can’t just remember exactly what was said but there is no question that she was linked with the devil.  I told you that the way she was spoken to was a way, which no creature of God should be spoken to.

J.P.That would be an extreme example, but there have been many here spoken to in a way which no creature of God should be spoken to, right here.

D.J.M.Mr. Bruce spoke to me last night just as Mr. John has, in similar strain.

W.B.H.I feel utterly ashamed the way I have spoken to so many, including Dick Pridham, Adrian Nuttall and many others, Eric Sanderson, David Trimmer, utterly wicked to bring up a person’s history against them when it has been covered by the blood.  Also the whole Chappell family, it is utterly wrong.


DEPOT MATTERS

A.K.S.Brethren will know that Mr. W.B.Hales as been a trustee of the depotfor some years, I think since 1961 when the activities of it became greatly increased and there was a much bigger flow of business through it in the way of ministry, but about 1962 he opened a separate private account with a sister who was then an employee of the depot, into which he put monies of his own for the purpose of purchasing technical books, which were bought on the depot order form for the purpose of obtaining the trading discount.  This did not implicate the depot at all except that it involved the use of its order forms.  Mostly, cash was paid for these books whether bought locally or from overseas.  In July 1964 Mr. Crutcher was brought into the depot as manager and he carried on much the same practice through two separate accounts.  By January this year, these technical books were beginning to be paid for by depot funds.  It might be remarked that it was never the intention of the depot to handle this kind of books.  The purpose of the depot was to handle only ministry.  By March of this year most of these books were being paid for by the depot, that is, they were ordered and paid for in the ordinary way by the depot.  All this was according to instructions by Mr. W.B.Hales.  During 1964 there was only 148 pounds worth of these books purchased but during this year, 2,380 pounds worth of these technical books have in fact been purchased and paid for by the depot.  Also there has been large quantities of business stationary.  That is not stationary intended for the depot, but stationary intended for the operation of businesses in connection with the consulting practices, also time study material.  There is over 1,000 pounds worth of such material been ordered and purchased by the depot through the depot account.  Early this year, sales films worth over 800 pounds were purchased; all these things were never intended to be connected with the depot.  During this year, a plane was chartered for a particular purpose for a one-day tour with overseas visitors or various western meetings and farms, which has become known as the “western air conference”.  The whole expenses of that were 325 pounds and was paid for by the depot.  Brethren may keep those things in their minds;we want to refer now to this separate account, known as the E.L.Crutcher & W.B.Hales clearing account.  This account was used for the clearing of certain private cheques, which was quite all right, it was also used as a trading account to buy and sell other of these technical books.  These were technical books, which were never brought into the depot at all.  They were bought and sold on this separate account, that account never had any depot money in it at all.  Now the other account, “E.L.Crutcher Trust Account” became finally a deposit account into which monies were put from the sale of technical books owned by the depot.  That is, technical books were purchased by the depot, paid for by depot funds, and then sold.  When sold, they were sold without an invoice and without a receipt, and the money received was put into this separate deposit account.  When this Western Air Conference was conducted, 170 pounds of the expenses was collected in fares from various persons who participated.  That 170 pounds was also paid into this account.   That western trip was paid for by the depot, but what money was collected was paid into this separate account.  There was also another account operated which was used as a deposit account for gifts received by the depot, so that certain monies received as gifts to the depot were not in fact paid into the depot proper account but were paid into a third separate account which was in the name of a sister.  The object of this practice was to draw money away from the depot into separate private accounts in order to use it, not for misappropriation, but to use it in a different way to that intended by the depot.  None of this money has been taken and used for private things.  The whole intention was to draw money away from the depot so that it could be used in view of a different arrangement.  It may be said that office furniture owned by the depot…it should be said that there were two or three centres where stock of the depot was kept due to the fact that the present building is not large enough, and there was office furniture in these places.  Some of this office furniture was installed in Mr. W.B.Hales’ house.  His intention always was to pay for it, and at one stage did give a gift to Mr. Crutcher amounting to 250 pounds, stated to be part payment for the furniture and books.  The value of the furniture was 374 pounds.  All these amounts have been sorted out and placed under appropriate headings and Mr. Hales has in fact met it all in cash.  There is nothing outstanding at all including some amounts sent overseas which I will now refer to.  

During this year a draft for 1200 pounds was sent to New York under the heading of “free distribution to New York”.  That was given to a brother in New York, whilst it did not designate what for, it just said “free distribution” but it would be understood to be free distribution of ministry.  That would be within the scope of the depot.  It was intended or given to be used for the purchase of more technical books in New York for distribution in the aid of businesses and knowledge over there.  We understand that that money is now available to be returned.  That money has also been met by Mr. W.B.Hales.  The depot here has a large surplus in Stow Hill in view of pre-payments of ministry of a very large credit.  Due to a drop in price after the arrangements were made there became a surplus credit of several thousand pounds to be held in Stow Hill.  1,725 pounds of that surplus credit was arranged to be drawn out and be paid into a brother’s private account in London.  Most of that has been distributed by Mr. Hales.  500 pounds sterling of it was given to help for the Paris meeting room.  300 pounds sterling of it has been distributed in view of the purchase of technical books in England.  We have no record of what happened to the balance except that 170 pounds is still in that private account. (W.B.H. says he now has a full record.)….. To W.B.H “Have you a full record for which it was used?”  W.B.H. “Yes”.

Brethren will remember that a legal seminar was referred to as having been conducted in this City; the expenses of that seminar were met by the depot.  That is, all the expenses incurred were paid by the depot.  That amounted to 483 pounds and that has been met by another brother privately to relieve the depot.  I would like to ask Mr. W.B.Hales whether that 500 pounds from the amount in the private account in London was in fact the 500 pounds that has been referred to to-day as the amount he gave in another place to the Paris meeting room or are they separate amounts?

W.B.HI have paid for that amount for the Paris meeting room and I think I have paid for other monies for the Paris meeting room, I am not sure. My reason for all that, the arrangements, were utterly wrong, the reason for them was  …(indistinct)…. Would like to have fellowship with the depot, the funds of the depot had built up for use for the purchase of premises.  It was discovered at the end of last year that the depot under the trustees could not own premises, so that all these funds had been kept ready for that purpose, but it was still utterly wrong, it was utterly disobedient.  What should have been done was just to accept the fact that we could not buy this premises, cut the price of the books and stop the funds coming in and I repudiate the whole thing. 

A.K.S.The basis of putting the monies from the depot into separate accounts would be unrighteous, would it not?

W.B.H.Yes, it contravened the trust deed.

A.K.S.It would be unrighteous wouldn’t it?

W.B.H.Yes, that’s what I have said.  I have explained the reason Mr. Smith, is that right?

J.P.Is there anything more now to be said?  Has the ground been covered Dr.Martin?

D.J.M. The matter I should have said from the Barbados, came to me this morning from Mr. Glynne and Mr. Keith Hunt that in the meetings in the Barbados, Mr.John Hales said that “when a brother was working hard and laying down his life for the brethren, his wife would have to be a widow and his children orphans.” 

This is confirmed by Mr. Colin Williams.  Mr. Taylor’s comment in Nostrand Ave was “this is of the devil”.  Mr. John also said in those meetings that the effectiveness of a minister is measured by the demands made on the brethren.  Mr. Taylor takes exception to that.  Mr. Braden said that was said in Newcastle also.

J.P.Also in the minds of the brethren would be business brought into the assembly even on Lord’s day at Canberra after the supper there was a business meeting arranged to discuss certain things.  That continued, I understand, up to the time of the reading.

C de J.I can only refer to what was stated as an intention, so that everything should be fair as to the books that were purchased.  I was told when questioning about the matter, I was told that it was the intention for these books in the long run to be paid for.

J.P.I think that covers all the matters we should speak of in care Dr. Martin.  If our brothers have anything to say we would make way for it.

D.J.M.As to what has been said, is it fair and just?

W.B.H.Quite fair and just Dr. Martin.  Much more, I could say.

D.J.M.Could you say the same Mr. John?

J.S.H.As to the matters that involve myself Dr. Martin, they are more than fair.

D.J.M.Brethren will see three is a difference.  The mastermind in the whole thing has been Mr. W.B.Hales.  As to the spirit of commerce, they have both been in it and the propagation of it as ministry and doctrine, they have both been in it very actively, and in the party activities, when it comes to depot matters, Mr.John has not been in that, he knew practically nothing of it.  That section would be Mr. Bruce’s responsibility.  

J.P.As to the matters generally, Mr. John has told us that his brother Bruce’s word was the Lord’s word to him.  Do you go with all that has been said Mr.Alan Braden?

AWHB   Yes I certainly do Mr. Patton.

J.P.Do you think the assembly conscience has been fully carried?

AWHB   Well I can speak for myself and my conscience is engaged.

E.L.CThere is one thing that you thought should be mentioned Dr. Martin; it came up at the Detroit meetings in the presence of our brother Mr. Taylor, that Mr.W.B.Hales had said to Mr. Will McKillop, that if he came to Australia he would be crucified.  Mr. Keith Smith and I spoke to Mr. Bruce about this and Mr. Bruce can say what he said to us.

W.B.H.It was not a threat, it was a statement of what would happen, if he came to Australia in the frame of mind he was then in.  But then he was right and I was wrong.  That was at Council Bluffs.  It was a wicked statement.

R.T.B.Mr. Patton, I would mention the matter of the business meeting at Canberra after the Lord’s Supper, just so that the brethren should know exactly what happened as far as I can remember.  Certain matters regarding a brother and his family who have a business in Canberra were discussed in his home, as far as I remember for about 20 minutes before we went to the reading.  Mr. Bruce Hales did say he did not want to know any details about the business.  The discussion was just particularly about the son of the brother whose house we were in.

W.B.H.It was utterly cruel.

R.T.B.I believe that was right MR Hales but I just wanted the brethren to know as to it having been called a business meeting.

D.J.MWould the matters that would engage our conscience be:

1. The spirit of commerce which both have propagated extensively in ministry;
2. Dishonesty in ministry as regards Southampton and things which Mr. John has said in Barbados which were not the truth in regard of ministry.
3. Party activity, they have both been active in this.
4. Injurious speaking they have both had part but particularly Mr. W.B.Hales.  Mr. John has been present at times and has not rebuked it, but Mr. Bruce has been by far the more prominent. 
5. Depot matters they rest with Mr. W.B.Hales.
6. Our brother Mr. John was untruthful and he lied to Mr. Taylor as to money.  Would that cover the matters Mr. Patton?

J.P.Yes

J.S.H.I think it should be added Dr. Martin that there has really been a rebellion against the voice of the Spirit, that is what I am conscious of.

D.J.M.I think that is so, I should have mentioned too what should engage us, is the slighting of Mr. Taylor.  Mr. John has said that for some years he has not read the green books.  I asked him was it because you thought your ministry was equal?  He said “no” but he thought his brother Bruce’s was as valuable.  It is very clear the Lord’s controversy is as to where he has placed the leadership.

J.S.H.What I tried to convey Dr. Martin was that I found I had lost my taste for Mr.Taylor’s ministry and I found after the rebellion in 1962 that I was not deriving my supply from the current voice of the Spirit and these things that I have said and come out with I have been deriving from another source.

W.B.HJust after the Southampton meetings in which I so dishonestly refused the adjustment of the Lord, I believe that’s when Satan got control of my mind and brought back through my mind all that I thought I had abandoned.  Within six months of that, certain of the bigger businesses amongst us came to me.  I knew that Mr. Taylor had advised them, Mr. Heaney, Mr. Harry and others to sell their businesses.  I believe now, Dr. Martin, to be an act of rebellion, I allowed a sort of plausible explanation as to the difficulty of selling, to find another way, which was not the Spirit’s way and the Lord has been resentful of it.  The whole of this line of things stems from that.

D.J.M.Which really is that you have quarreled with sovereignty in the leadership, which the Lord has placed universally.

W.B.H.And therefore usurped the Lord’s place including in homes and in the assembly.

D.J.M.Mr. Bruce has said to me and he would say it here, that he has taken the place of Christ.  We would have to say that is so.

W.B.H.I told you the other night Dr. Martin, it is rebellion.  It is as divination, such words “is as” is idolatry, is just overwhelming in its horror.

D.J.M.Should we proceed into assembly brethren?

J.P.Yes.  I think the Lord has clearly helped us and guided us to one point.  The matter has been intelligent as to facts, intelligent as to principles involved, our conscience engaged.  Would you think Mr. Reddel we should have a scriptural basis.  We have 1 Corinthians 5.  I believe what has been clearly outlined allows the word “being such”.

R.C.R.I believe that is the truth Mr. Patton and there is no alternative as to what we must judge.

J.P. So that I would judge, and I believe I would speak for all the brethren, that we have had exposed in no uncertain way the most extreme wickedness with which we have ever had to do and that we have no alternative as acting in the fear of the Lord in saying that we can longer walk with our brother Mr. Bruce Hales, and also as we have been able to rightly separate where there has been a lesser degree of responsibility in some matters, still in the main these two men are one, and we would also as conveying the Lord’s mind and His feelings at this time we must also say that we withdraw from Mr. John Hales.  I would ask all the brethren to say “Amen”.





41 comments:

  1. This document is a valuable primary source for historical and/or sociological research, particularly as it deals with a pivotal event in Exclusive Brethren history. It looks entirely authentic, apart from a few transcription errors and some obvious typing errors. Well done, Fairfield Kid for finding it.

    It is also quite startling as it seriously undermines the picture of events that subsequent Brethren leaders have painted, and it exposes some astonishingly cavalier ways of handling or mishandling money belonging to the church and to the Stow Hill Depot. It also gives strong evidence that WBH with the support of JSH was trying to take the leadership from JTJr.

    If anyone wants to use it for research or other serious purposes, I would recommend that the following errors should first be corrected.

    The bits quoted from the meeting at Metal Protectives should be put in a different font or italics to distinguish them from the interspersed comments. The present format is confusing.

    Replace “mind of go” with “mind of God” (twice).

    Replace “Mr Terry” with “Mr Terries” (4 times).

    Replace “David Lawry” with “David Laurie”.

    I think “three is a difference” should be “there is a difference”.

    I suspect that “Tchappet” should be “Tchappat” (twice).

    One thing that would enhance the value of this document for serious historical purposes is a named eyewitness who was present at the assembly meeting in 1965 and can say whether the document agrees with his recollection.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Questions for BDH

    1 Have you been aware of the existence of this record of the Care Meeting/Assembly meeting in Sydney in October 1965? It is accepted that you were 11 years old at the time.
    2. How does the interference in the businesses and lives of brethren in 2016 differ from the interference described above and perpetrated by WBH and JSH in the years leading up to October 1965?
    3. Do you really think your father was wrongly withdrawn from?
    4 Do you really think that JSH did not sin after the age of 12?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have spoken to many people who were there Ian. And they agree that's how it went down. Let's face it - you could not make it up. I was at another assembly meeting where their cohort (who gets a mention) was sent packing and it went along similar lines to this, with reference to this. I have a mate with a shelf of diaries who wrote down every dramatic word and shot in anger - I'll see what he has in store on the subject too.

    The bottom line is that BDH says all this was a huge miscarriage of justice- that his father and uncle did nothing wrong and the Brethren should all be bloody ashamed of themselves. As you can see - they were wrong on many counts - but the way they spoke to people was appalling and I witnessed that on several occasions. Because I was there!

    ReplyDelete
  4. OK Ian - to be utterly positive that this is a correct transcript- I have tracked down a brother who has an actual tape of the meeting. His response to this is that it is "absolutely authentic"! So I think we can dispense with the first line of defense - that it is a tissue of lies- made up by disaffected people. This will of course be Hales first response but it won't work with this. Absolutely authentic!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you, Anonymouses, I believe you completely. I have no doubt at all that the transcript is authentic, but given the importance of this document I would like a named person who could provide the kind of eyewitness evidence that a journalist or a court or a diligent historian would require. There are probably many people still alive who were present at the meeting in Sydney in 1965.

    By the way, I can personally confirm as an eyewitness that WBH was publicly brash and insulting to various Brethren in Glasgow in the mid-1960s and that he and his brother John went around as a team bullying and humiliating and telling people how much money to give. WBH took the lead in this, and occasionally called on his brother John for support.

    Their style was then imitated by others who wanted to rise up the pecking order. Various other would-be bullies then began to issue rebukes and personal insults to lower-ranking brothers during the meetings. It was one way of establishing their rank order.

    ReplyDelete
  6. By what I remember W Bruce Hales was 'restored' to the fellowship in February 1966 after having his spell of freedom.

    In 1966 it was not long before Jim Taylor said that John Hales was withdrawn from even though he said he was sorry, the Sydney brethren had ex-communicated a repentant man. Then followed the saga of 'vindictiveness' when the tables were turned on persons who had been seriously wronged by Bruce and John Hales and it was pointed out that they should learn to forgive and forget.

    From the notes published above I have learned that the Hales brothers were critical of J.T.Jr, and I agree with what is said at the beginning that the brethren in Sydney were dealing with the most serious attack ever amongst them. You have to be aged at least 65 now to remember the experience of the 1964/1965 years. For the first time in my life in 1965 I decided that life outside brethren would be better than life inside, and this stayed with me. Several years later we managed to escape - a decision we have never regretted. In 1965 a certain Mr J Hazell from London was put out for criticising the commercial regime; in October 1965 he was brought back, after all he had been proved right. When he came back he looked healthy and rested; if ever there was an advertisement for life outside the brethren this was it. He looked as if he had been on holiday whereas those of us who had lived through the 1965 Hales regime were on our knees, tired out, almost ill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There has been an attempt among the Brethren to rewrite the history of 1965. Instead of regretting that a repentant man was withdrawn from in 1965, the story was changed to saying that a sinless man [JSH] was withdrawn from. This is stated explicitly in White Book 246, which contains a transcript of a Fellowship meeting on 11 June 2008 at Belfast with H. S. Dunlop. See particularly pages 57 to 84. Dunlop says,

      "And I don’t think we’ve reached to the real thing that the Lord has in mind about his beloved servant yet; that what happened in Sydney in 1976 to 1979 and 1965 is that a sinless man was withdrawn from. We hid behind the fact that we withdrew from a repentant man, and used the wrong Scripture. Well, so far, so good, but he was not a repentant man, he was a sinless man; and that’s the great divide at the present time. Beloved Mr. Symington said, John Hales will lead the saints through to the rapture."

      In other words, the things JSH was accused of and admitted to were not sins. One wonders just how bad a Brethren leader’s deeds have to be before they are called sins.

      If JSH was sinless then maybe the Devil isn’t such a bad guy after all.

      Delete
  7. You know- I love all this concern as to whether JSH was sinless or caught up in the sins of his brother. But I fail to see any concern for the many who were thrown out by these people in a most vindictive way after they all returned. No concern for them or their families. Somehow, it's all about the Hales being whitewashed for eternity. JHS got it real wrong by saying JSH would take them through to the rapture didn't he? They make it up as they go folks.

    Just for the record - who was withdrawn from for having issues with matters at the time - wrongly - in the Hales' eyes. I know there were hundreds caught up in the collateral damage of this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous 20 October 09:15

    'You have to be aged at least 65 now to remember the experience of the 1964/1965 years.'

    No, you don't. I am 59 and clearly remember a meeting held at Raan's School, Amersham where JSH, WBH and Athol Greene were present. Persons were made to stand in the hall and tell everyone how much they earned, to much derision from the platform. I was about 8 at the time and I have never forgotten it.

    I was also present at Alan Poole's house in Seven Kings when he was entertaining Alan Gadsden and his family around that time. That day too sticks in my mind as I had never seen such uncontrolled hooliganism by young boys in the home of Brethren. Alan Gadsden and his wife were apparently 'in liberty', which loosely equates to allowing your children to run riot without restraint.

    I clearly remember being praised by my mother on the way home, for not joining in the carnage, wrecking the furniture, annoying the neighbours and trespassing on British Rail property.

    John Gadsden would have been one of those present that day.

    Misbehaving and unchecked EB children were also a feature of the 'breaks' which came later, but I would suggest that the uncouth disobedience we witnessed then, stemmed from the same source.

    I have been away from the EB for over 25 years, been in countless friend's houses and have yet to see that attitude replicated.

    As for visiting someone's house, looking under your host and hostesses bed, and reporting your findings to local 'priests', don't even start me on that one!

    Mark R Elliott

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding children being badly behaved, I heard of some, unrestrained in a meeting room, squirting an out of favour, elderly brother with water. His *crime* was possibly a refusal to drink whisky.

      Delete
    2. In the aftermath of Aberdeen, that kind of behaviour became quite common in the meetings. Water pistols, paper aeroplanes, reading comics etc. Tom Bennett was an advocate of this kind of behaviour.

      Delete
  9. So from reading the document it appears that some 50 odd years ago in the 1960's, both John S and W.Bruce Hales were brash, rude, egotistical, arrogant, mean crooked unchristian bullies who also dared to question the "universal divine sovereignty" of the then alleged "man of God" (Taylor). They mishandled the Brethren's gift money, told people how much to give, told them how to run their businesses, and blurred the lines between assembly governance and business management practices by holding forth at "business" meetings where they used the power of scripture to bolster up their advice, while on the other side implied or said that people who can run a big business make for good leaders in the Assembly.
    They called people names, belittled them, kicked folks out of other brethren's homes, and generally were on a fast track plan of totalitarian fear mongering dictatorship style tyranny over every aspect of brethrens lives.
    Then they were allowed to be present at their own "trial by assembly meeting" in which they admitted and condemned their wrong doings publicly, but were put out of fellowship at that meeting anyway. (wrongly I presume, due to their seeming repentance)
    Did I get it mostly right so far, or have I misunderstood the case?
    What was it that caused their case to have been brought up for review by the brethren? Did they turn themselves in, or was there public outcry by the brethren, or what?
    Now we fast forward to the more slickly administered and more deeply subversive indoctrination tyranny of Bruce D Hales, and you are telling me that he says the assembly was wrong to have put his dad out not because he was a repentant man, but a sinless one instead?!

    1 2 Mini

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was not BDH who said JSH was a sinless man, it was H. S. Dunlop, but I am sure BDH agreed with it. Such an extreme statement is not likely to have got into the White Book without the approval of BDH.

      Also, BDH said very similar things. For example,
      “I’ve got not the slightest doubt in my mind that having observed J. S. H. over many years, that he came to that in early youth, that being born of God, and being included amongst the saints of God, was totally and utterly incompatible with going on with any element of darkness or lawlessness, which is sin . . . So that’s how he set his whole life. So he didn’t sin; sin, he poured scorn on it.”
      Ministry of BDH Vol. 110 page 96 (Watford, 6 April 2011)

      “The Lord must have said, Well, if you’ve come to that, I’m going to see that you do not sin. I’ll protect you, I’ll preserve you from failing, I’ll preserve you from failure.”
      Ministry of BDH Vol. 113 page 161 (Perth, U.K., 12 July 2011)

      “See, our beloved brother used to use the expression, that sin is terminated in the believer. l have not the slightest shadow of a doubt that he arrived at it at an early age, sin was terminated, he had finished with it.”
      Ministry of BDH Vol. 77 page 137 (Levin, 15 July 2008)

      Add to that the fact that the adulation of JSH is probably the single most prominent component of the ministry of BDH. The 2014 Index to the ministry of BDH comes in five volumes, and Volume 5 is entirely about JSH.

      The Bible and Gospel Trust claims copyright of the above quotations.

      Delete
    2. The ministry of H S Dunlop was clearly endorsed by BDH as stated above. It would not have been published otherwise.
      Any rational person must come to the following conclusions after reading the record of the care/assembly meeting in Sydney in October 1965:-
      1. JSH and BDH were correctly excommunicated because of their treatment of the brethren and their role in the introduction of commercialism into the EB church.
      2. JSH was wrong (ie he sinned) in doing what he did.
      To try and re-write history has been attempted by the EB on several occasions but the overwhelming evidence to the contrary makes the assertion that JSH never sinned from the age of 12 laughable if it was not so serious.
      If BDH believes what has been said about his father he too has been brainwashed and should re-read 1 John 1 verses 8-10
      Humility and honesty are sad to say characteristics that are not much in evidence in EB ministry.

      Delete
  10. Whilst I did not witness the brash, arrogant, offensive behaviour of WBH and JSH as attested above I was present at meetings in early 1965 (as far as I recall) when Alan Gadsden behaved in a similar fashion. He belittled respected brethren, criticised their ministry and told certain leading brothers they should not be working in the public service.
    He arrived unannounced and uninvited in the middle of three day meetings in Belfast and more or less took over. The tension in those meetings was palpable and a brother collapsed and died during one of the meetings.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This catharsis is an interesting one because it highlights the inequality in the Peebs. Hales has fully supported the concept that his father and uncle were wrongly withdrawn from for this and gone to great lengths to expunge their records accordingly.

    And yet their 'sins' were about as bad as it got in those days - departing from scripture,bringing commerce into the temple, disrespecting the Brethren, meddling in the affairs of other assemblies, being incredibly disrespectful and dismissive of the Man of God,loving money, disregarding those that didn't have it as inconsequential, humiliating people publicly, being less than honest about general Brethren funds and generally being 'cowboys'. I'd say they sinned a lot. It's black and white.

    But people like the Hales don't like to admit stuff like that. Of greater significance were those that were 'dealt with' during and after this meltdown - and for them - the Hales have no similar feeling or desire to revisit. It was an iniquitous time in their history -all brought about by two men in particular. And their name was Hales.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I would hazard a guess that BDH's usual gang of sycophants have been warned off posting here, maybe even looking here, such is the clarity of this piece of undeniable evidence which contradicts everything BDH now claims.

    They've slammed the door,run away and tried to hide. It's what they do in most situations these days, rather than facing the truth.

    It must have been enlightening for many EB to hear from Willie Apiata VC, a man who risked his life to save a comrade. Most of them will only consider saving their own skin, sod everybody else. Blame someone else......Just like Jesus did so He didn't have to be nailed to some wood and left to die.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I believe that more Brethren read this site than we think going on reports I get. I know good old Roger used to - so he could keep Bruce up to speed. Hopefully they will see what really happened here - God knows so many lies have been told about what actually happened and how wrong the Brethren were. Um - not really folks. It all took place. You might even remember people who were withdrawn from during this time.... but the Brethren of course don't care about them. It's all about about whitewashing the great Hales these days.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think we can take it that the dear brethren on this occasion are following the maxim "when we are in a hole stop digging". How can anyone possibly suggest that John Hales was sinless and wrongfully withdrawn from after reading the above? Guilty as charged!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh dear friends, lay off the dramatics please.They are such a nice sincere lot of people. Really can't see what all the fuss is abouy.Live and let live.I also reckon Hales is 100% innocent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump!

      Delete
  16. "I also reckon Hales is 100% innocent."

    Correct. Innocent of having a decent bone in his body.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well - if Hales is 100% innocent - then the Brethren must have been 100% wrong. So will you at least admit to that? Mind you - most of them were sinning from the age of 12. Pffft!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think 'untrustworthy' sums the Hales family up politely and succinctly. Other words do spring to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have never seen so much rubbish in all my life. What a bunch of losers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you consider to be rubbish.
      Many of the readers of this blog were around in the 1960s and appreciate the publication of this important historical record of what took place in 1965. Are you questioning the authenticity of this record.? I find it helpful when contributors substantiate their comments. For example Ian's post of 20 October at 21.01 contains direct quotations from published ministry of the Exclusive Brethren. I would be inclined to agree with you if you consider that particular ministry to be rubbish.

      Delete
  20. What a setup. Laurie publishes things he disgarees with. Why does this pop-up when you go to publish blog??? .... "Your comment will be visible after approval"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am glad that Laurie allows posts that he disagrees with. Free and open discussion is a good way of finding out the truth; censored discussion is not. However, in any Internet forum it is sometimes necessary to delete posts that are merely spamming, abusive, irrelevant or illegal.

      Delete
  21. I find it extraordinary that the Peebs are so brainwashed that anything that points a questioning finger at their history or current regime is immediately discounted as rubbish. As the person who put this up said- this is not anything to do with 'disaffected' ex-members. Their meeting. Their words. Their people (of the day) -and this is merely a transcript of that meeting - which was prepared by THEM!! So if you are saying the Brethren are rubbish - then maybe you have a point.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If you ever wonder why the Peebs have big fences and gates and padlocks and security guards on all of their 'churches' - it has nothing to do with maintaining the 'world-free' sanctity of their so called religion. They are not there because they want to be separate from the world -(unless they are doing business with it.)

    They are there because they are guilty! They know they are guilty of hundreds if not thousands of vindictive, misplaced crimes against people. They know they did people wrong. People like the Hales always went looking for scapegoats and threw them out. In the wake of their sins as detailed above - people were thrown out and never made it back. That is why after this - and many many issues subsequent to this event- they have a guilt for what they did to people. And today it is why they are perhaps the only so-called church in the world that locks its gates once the parishioners are vetted and inside. They are guilty folks- and they know it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Might I point our anonymous friend to the PBCC Brethren website which has a similar disclaimer. Otherwise we would all be plastering stuff up there like they do here!

    ReplyDelete
  24. The nutcase Laurence Moffitt has finally left the building! Maybe even the planet with a bit of luck!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous24 November 2016 at 17:11 very likely suffers from narcissism.However cults could be fertile breeding grounds for some of these sicknesses

      Bruce Hales even seem to display some narcissistic type tendency.He has been well known to even encourage other folk to kill themselves

      One wonders.How could so many exclusive brethren folk have remained so blind.That they freely choose to follow along behind an unbroken line of sick men

      How could they be so stupid.If not for the likely fact that their minds have been left to "stagnate" within the in bred realm of a nutty cult

      Delete
    2. At least Laurence Moffitt would no longer need to feel ignorantly stupid for continually clinging unto some backward cult mentality.Like so many brain dead brethren folk choose

      Praise the Lord

      Delete
  25. I'm still guffawing at the way Symington sent the Hales wannabe's back from North America on the plane they'd just arrived on. One unbroken line? I don't think so. One big political piece of nastiness. Brethren. Yuk, no thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon 17:11 - nope he's still alive and kicking (your arse). But keep praying anyway.

    Anon 19:09. Yup - you got it. Just a lot of silly self important, self righteous men playing with other people's lives. God doesn't even get a look in these days. I must say - they don't respond well to the facts though do they? Brethren people have never been good with facts. They prefer conspiracy theories and 'savage interruptions'.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I say leave this article front page for as long as possible, right in Hale's chubby grinning face. History cannot be changed however many tantrums Hale's has about it. Look into the background of most PBCC owned businesses ( you can now they are all limited companies ) and see for yourself that all this self aggrandisement and pride in money making is a very thin facade. 'Could do better' would be the understatement of the year. Most are on a wing and two prayers!

    ReplyDelete
  28. That's why Exclusive Brethren members come on here and make insulting personal remarks without one shred of factual information to support the cult they belong to. They then disappear as quickly as they can. Why can't the EB stand up for what they say they believe?
    Or do they accept that they cannot defend the indefensible.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Well to be fair to them - they can hardly walk up to BDH and say - "Here Bruce- you've been telling us a load of old porkies mate! Your old man deserved everything he had coming to him." Can they? Mind you - some of those who DO remember these events have obviously had a mind altering experience. Er- refute the truth - or suffer the same fate. Sadly acquired ignorance is the bi-product of being in a cult with one bully boy running the show. How many times have we seen it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well yes they could walk up to BDH and say that Anonymous28 November 2016 at 03:12.However afterwards they will then pay a rather huge price for choosing to do so.And to make these matters far worse,the non eb general public outside of these cults mostly wont care to even bat an eyelid over it either.Including the folks whom claim to be mainstream Christians

      You see society has been coerced into agreeing to just freely accept this kind of situation as if it's quite normal.They are become so well accustomed to this type of thing.For indeed obviously even most mainstream Christian folk too, don't really care to see it as being any real issue worthy of their concern.After all this kind of situation has so little effect on themselves

      Cults still remain most unlikely candidate to ever become world leaders of love and kindness and reform.



      Delete
  30. 'Well to be fair to them - they can hardly walk up to BDH and say - "Here Bruce- you've been telling us a load of old porkies mate! Your old man deserved everything he had coming to him." Can they? '

    Why not? He's only another overweight, egotistical wannabe. I told them what I thought and they still tried to keep me in. It will only be when ordinary EB vote with their feet and leave, that BDH will realise his real status. Tubby bloke with an ego problem and a poisonous father-in-law who should know better. If he's the Athol, Bruce must be the sphincter.

    ReplyDelete