An Exclusive Brethren church trust in Devon is to consider advertising its services to satisfy the Charity Commission that it serves a public benefit, according to Third Way magazine yesterday.
The news that the Preston Down Trust had been refused charitable status was greeted with alarm in some Christian circles, but the National Director of Christian Voice believes it is a very special case and that good can come from it if the decision forces churches into the gospel imperative of social action.
In a letter to the Brethren, the Charity Commission cited a tribunal ruling that religion is not always for “the public benefit” and said “there is no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for the public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England”.
The Brethren have announced their intention to seek an appeal.
The Exclusive Brethren are a Christian denomination who have no fellowship with those outside. They affix a small sign to their meeting hall stating that it is a place of public worship to satisfy the law, but little else gives its function away. They do not extend hospitality to outsiders and are not involved in the community at large, keeping themselves as separate as they can from the world.
MPs on the Public Administration Select Committee, which is investigating the work of the Charity Commission, are concerned that the commission could start denying charitable status to other religious groups.
Charlie Elphicke, a member of the committee and the MP for Dover and Deal, believes the commission is ‘committed to the suppression of religion’.
The Charities Act 2006 means that organisations which previously gained charitable status automatically now have to demonstrate “public benefit”.
Professor Peter Luxton, an expert in charity law at Cardiff University, said the Charity Commission’s attempt to define public benefit was “a nonsense,” since the 2006 law did not make any changes to the definition of a charity.
He added: “The Commission has been completely out of control.”
The Charity Commission said: ‘The application from Preston Down Trust was not accepted on the basis that we were unable to conclude that the organisation is established for the advancement of religion for public benefit within the relevant charity law.’
A spokeswoman went further, saying that the decision to deny charitable status to the Preston Down Trust ‘took into account the nature of Christian religion embraced by the trust and the means through which this was promoted, including the public access to its services and the potential for its beneficial impact on the wider community’, according to Third Sector.
Rod Buckley, a member of Preston Down Trust, said that it does allow non-members to attend services, but advertising its meetings will demonstrate that.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said:
‘This decision, while it may seem unwelcome, is not quite the big deal that some are making out. There is not the remotest possibility of churches up and down the land losing their charitable status.
‘In a sense it is a pity that new charity law has allowed the Charity Commission to change the old understanding that the promotion of religion is a good thing and that ‘it is good for people to have a religion’, but that was in an era when ‘religion’ in our land simply meant Christianity.
‘However, in Britain today, we are beginning to see that not all religion is good. Churches engage, or should engage, in social action, and the Christian faith has brought immense benefit to our nation. Our laws were historically based on Christian principles of justice, although secularists have deliberately legislated against righteousness in the last fifty years. Our heritage of generosity, altruism, philanthropy and care for the poor and needy were based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, although these too are now under pressure.
‘But other religions struggle to show any public benefit. Mosques and Islamic trusts further the Islamic faith and give nothing beneficial to the community at large. Hinduism is similarly introspective, while campaigning atheist concerns with charitable status offer nothing that could conceivably be described as having a public benefit.
‘By observing that the Exclusive Brethren need to show how their faith benefits the outside world, the Charity Commission are pussing them into an openness and a willingness to serve that should be at the heart of the Gospel. That can only be a good thing.
‘Christians and churches in general need to take note and if they do not have projects which benefit the community, they should put them in place as a matter of urgency. God became one of us in Jesus Christ, and especially as we come up to Christmas, we need to learn the message of his incarnation and become his hands and feet doing what he urged us to do on earth. In addition, we need to show that Christians live industrious, God-fearing lives which make a positive impact on the world around us.
‘We should also begin to draw the attention of the Charity Commission to the lack of public benefit of anti-Christian bodies with charitable status. Groups promoting evil under the guise of ‘educating the public’ should be exposed for what they are. The Charity Commission may have done the cause of Christ a lot of good in this decision.’
Some suggestions of social action church projects:
Engaging with the community in prayer and worship
Evangelism
Wide advertising of worship meetings, services and projects
Street Pastors and ‘Night Lights’
Soup Kitchens
Food Banks
Offering help with unemployment claim forms and housing benefits
Debt counselling
Helping people into work with courses, drafting CVs, etc
Advice with business skills and encouragement,
Marriage preparation, guidance, and building.
Poverty relief at home
Support of projects overseas
MIcro-finance
Support for parents in trouble with Social Services,
Help with parenting and home management skills,
Speaking out on the issues of the day,
Do our members have any other suggestions?
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
The action of the Charity Commission was a determination to reduce the cost to the government of rates-free property and other charity benefits. They chose the Christian Brethren because they are a relatively small demoninational group with no central headquarters. It is, believe me, just the sharp edge of the wedge. Every church group will be analysed carefully to try and find reasons to remove their charitable status.
You are absolutely correct in everything you say – make no mistake, the charity commission are on a very nasty mission. And the above article says many untrue things about the Plymouth Brethren, who, just because they choose to go about their charitable work in a quieter way than some, don’t get the credit due to them. They do find it hurtful for it to be suggested that they don’t get involved in providing public benefit – who wouldn’t??
There was a very interesting debate in parliament on Tuesday, which shows how thankful we can be that many, many MPs are still standing up for Christianity in this country, http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=11702, but the minister responsible for the ‘big society’, Nick Hurd, who replies at the end, came over as rather a wet blanket for some reason – does he not want Chrisianity in his big society, or what IS going on??
The Charity Commission are doing their job. The Exclusive Brethren are quite different to any other denomination in that they will not eat or socialise with anyone outside their religion. I left voluntarily 23 years ago and sadly am still being harassed by them, they will not let go. I have even had to move house and sell a business to keep out of their way. My two sisters who are still in the religion have not spoken with me since I left. Please do not believe the myth that this is an attack on Christianity. It is not.
Just ask yourselves why the Exclusive Brethren have suddenly decided to rebrand themselves as the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. It is because they know that the Exclusive Brethren name has been besmirched by their anti-social and litigious nature.
I must say I have met these people in business and socially and am sorry if you feel you have suffered at their hands but what you put over is the opposite to what I have experienced. I first met them in our neighbourhood and had to do with them on a visit to their church at a service. They are certainly different to what you describe, perhaps you should further your acquaintance with them; they demonstrated Christian kindness and generosity to my family. I understand they still carry both names of Exclusive Brethren and Plymouth Brethren Christian Church; it seems they have nothing to hide about this.
They certainly give every indication that their energy and benefit to the local community deserve recognition and certainly public benefit. We all agree that Christianity in essence is what has given colour and tone to this country and will continue to do so. Let’s support everyone that demonstrates this character and attitude to our society.
Adam
I can relate to what you say.
I have dealt with many in business and find them admirable partners, persons of Christian faith and hence clearly a benefit to community.
As some of the comments here state rather negative experience, I can only think some work needs doing to put right any negatives experienced for whatever reason.
It is hard to believe these persons would cause anybody a problem but there again in my own family we have had some raw experiences so it would not be a surprise if other families have had the same in other walks of life!.
Easy for me to say things can be put right, but having proved scripture works to repair any breaches in many walks of life, I believe negatives can be changed to positives if we go by the word of God.
At least it has for me when my family cast me off for being an alcoholic.
Eph 4 v32 was the catalyst in my case.
It was the only appeal I had to bring us back together, which it has now done, thank God.
But back to the article above, it is clear to me that the Charity Commission are embarking on an anti-Christian vendetta and it is clearly just the thin end of the wedge for all religion worldwide.
We need to seriously consider the implications of not fighting in support of what the Brethren are putting time, effort and money into in view of having their charitable status upheld.
Dear Stephen
Either you know more than I have been able to find out so far this week, or your remarks are premature. The URL
http://TheExclusiveBrethren.com
redirects automatically to
http://plymouthbrethrenchristianchurch.org/
On the home page, you will find a link to a video that paints a very different picture indeed, from the words you wrote, “The Exclusive Brethren are a Christian denomination who have no fellowship with those outside. They affix a small sign to their meeting hall stating that it is a place of public worship to satisfy the law, but little else gives its function away. They do not extend hospitality to outsiders and are not involved in the community at large, keeping themselves as separate as they can from the world.”
Some accounts say that the issue that the Charity Commission has raised is closed communion. The right to run a guest house on Christian principles has already been lost. The right to of a church that has charitable status, not allow indiscriminate sharing in the bread and wine at the Lord’s table, even to hostile activists on a mission to build a case to bring to the attention of the Charity Commission, should now be regarded as under threat.
John
Absolutely agree 100%.
Hi All
Concerning the two urls http://TheExclusiveBrethren.com
redirects automatically to
http://plymouthbrethrenchristianchurch.org/
Until the 8th of this month the “Plymouth brethren christian church” was known as “The Exclusive Brethren”. On the 8th their original website came down and was replaced by the plymouth brethren one. One can only guess the need for this rebranding, particularly at this time.
The internet wayback machine offers a look at the old site.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110716232600/http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com/
Please check this site out and then compare it with what you see on the new site. You would never believe they were the same group.
On that page.. you will not find the word Plymouth. Now…. with the name change they are being confused with other branches of the brethren.
I hope this makes the situation clearer. If you would like more information… Visit http://peebs.net/forums/ This is a HOT topic there at this time.
Regards
Marg
Dear All
To be honest with you in regards to obtaining charity status we were never told to depend on the things of this world for our needs. We are instructed to depend on our Heavenly Father for ALL THINGS.
If push comes to shove and they withdraw charity status from the church then people should be upset about it. and if we do upset then we need to repent and ask our Lord to forgive for putting so much faith in the world system. What the church has been receiving from the world system has just been a benefit that the Lord had permitted. But the Lord never wanted us to tie ourselves to the world for extra perks.
Regards
Lreta
If push comes to shove, the charity commission would have the right to take away all Plymouth Brethren meeting halls and take over all their trusts – that is how critical this matter is. And what after that?? Perhaps they will make up the next generation of ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ and pack their bags and leave – who knows? The Plymouth Brethren are not dependent on having charitable status, as far as I know, but if it is going to be stripped from them, they would have little option but to take themselves elsewhere. Not a bad thing in the eyes of some people I guess, but can we really let our so-called Christian country go to ruin in this way? There are 100’s of Chrisian groups in this country who are very fearful for their own safety….. I am certainly not disagreeing with you in what you say above, at all, but it is a far more serious attack upon Christianity than just the fact of having charitable status.
The purpose of God’s church is first of all to spread the gospel. When Jesus taught His disciples He made them aware that the gospel was first and foremost – THEN – provide the social requirements like food and shelter BUT it always was Gospel first. How many churches are truly evangelical? If we carry out our commission as intended the body will be blessed.
I am aware of an Indian missionary called K P Yohannan who recognised that western missionaries lost their impetus when they settled in communities providing schools and hospitals; so much so that the converts in many instances returned to their pagan traditions. As they stopped spreading the Gospel and focussed on social needs the conversion rates slowed then regressed – a sound reminder to all of us working on His great commission. Remember we are in the world – not of it. Our home is truly in a better place
That’s very much an exclusively redemption theology viewpoint. I believe there needs to be a balance between preaching (Redemption Theology), social action (Incarnation Theology) and standing up for righteousness (Ascension Theology).
Our Lord Jesus did all three, so I suggest we emulate him. You could start, Phil, by joining Christian Voice!
Two other suggestions for engaging with the public:
Visiting Care Homes and Nursing Homes, taking services or ‘Songs of Praise’ or just visiting individual residents.
In our church a monthly Lunch Club is very popular, drawing in folk from the community – a good lunch, good conversation and a short epilogue at the end.
If you look at the Plymouth Brethren website, you will see for yourselves what they do! http://www.plymouthbrethrenchristianchurch.org
There are several thousand people from around the globe quite stunned at the present time as they watch the antics of the Exclusive Brethren – which was hastily renamed very recently (very probably on the advice of their PR advisors) to look like something they were not. They reverted to the name of a religious organization they in fact broke away from in the 1800’s to take some heat out of the extremely bad name they have as Exclusive Brethren in many countries. A bad name that is most assuredly deserved.
These people who profess to do so much good for the community have only very recently started to make token gestures like giving to worthy causes to bolster public opinion about them, but the very basis –the very core of this so called church is bad. It is unchristian – it is cruel – and it has no real scriptural basis.
I implore you to read the truth on a website that was established so that their victims could communicate with each other. http://www.peebs.net
Let’s make sure that we do not gloss over the facts of this church. If they achieve acceptance of this status- it will be a travesty for so many people.
It will also be one of the greatest injustices ever perpetuated by a parliamentary committee.
For the past 53 years the Exclusive Brethren have been a closed order sect. No grey areas here- it is a fact. We are not talking about a harmonious Christian based body here – but a group of 43,000 souls ruled by the iron fist of ONE MAN. The basis of a sect is any group that is ruled by the will of one man. The Brethren call their’s the ‘Man of God’ or the ‘Minister of the Lord in the Recovery’.
The injustices of this group are hard to fit into a submission that is of a readable length –so I shall just mention some keystone points for the Commission’s enlightenment. And I will just call this group ‘Brethren’.
· The Brethren have been destroying families and family ties in the cruellest way since 1959. This was the year they separated from the world. If you had relatives ‘in the world’ as many did –you were directed to ‘withdraw’ from them immediately and to never have any contact with them again. It is a fact. It happened all over the world. I will never forget the grief that this directive caused.
· They have destroyed thousands more families by withdrawing from individuals within families like teenagers who had become disillusioned by their teaching and hypocrisy. The result here is that you receive NO assistance, you are written out of wills and any other inheritance benefit, you have no contact for the rest of your life and you are treated as dead. This is a fact. I was just 20 years old when I saw my parents and some of my siblings for the last time – despite living and working within a short drive from them. If they had any contact with you – they too would follow the same fate. So they went to their graves in my case, without ever seeing their children again. When they died – we were forbidden to attend their funeral services. Indeed many are not even told their parents or siblings have died. This happened to many, many people.
· They have destroyed many families because of the slightest perception that they may be not entirely submissive. This means that if a leading brother thought that someone was not completely compliant, then that person was kicked out in an instant with no right of reply. Their family was turned against them and in some cases – the family moved away from so that they could not visit their wife and children. There have been many court cases where the Brethren have fought excluded parents over custody or visiting rights for their children and even when these cases have been won by the excluded parent- the Brethren then impose so much pressure on the family, teaching the children to despise their evicted parent as evil – they never reconnect with their children. There are so many cases where this has happened.
· The Brethren have always resisted modern technology –and did so up until fairly recently when they realised that they could no longer run their businesses without the internet and mobile telecommunications. If you had a computer or a mobile phone prior to this (and we are talking about the last 20 years here) you were thrown out and your family divided. This is a fact. The sad irony of this is that today – their leader –one Bruce David Hales –now has a lucrative business selling the Brethren all of their technology needs. The people who were withdrawn from prior to this remain ‘out’ because they moved ‘ahead of the Lord.’ The Lord in this case is Bruce David Hales and his father John Stephen Hales before him.
· There are many cases of child molestation in the Brethren. The difference is that the children were more often than not, ignored and told that they had contributed to their own misadventure. If the weight of evidence was overpowering, the perpetrator was thrown out and the children sent to ‘Coventry’. They received no counselling or support whatsoever. This is a fact. Even today – when cases were put before its current leader, he simply said it was nothing to do with them – and instructed any with grievances to go to the Police. It is no longer the Brethren’s concern.
· Since 1970 – no Brethren person has been allowed to attend a university to further their education. This is amply explained by their leaders in many media encounters. Universities are evil places and as they only work for themselves these days- they don’t need them and won’t allow them. There are very few vocational choices for their children. It’s a fact.
· Their young people today are forcibly yoked to their business and lifestyle system. They make them borrow from the Brethren for a mortgage, they must work for a Brethren business and they must marry within their guidelines. This carries the further constraint they must never entertain interracial marriage. It is forbidden. These rules essentially ensure compliance for life. People are so tied up that they can never leave –lest they lose everything. Including their families.
· This latest impression that their churches are open to the public like all mainstream churches is a lie. A blatant lie. This is a hasty readjustment brought about so that they can achieve charitable status. In the late 1960’s or early 1970’s they removed any signage on their churches announcing who they were or any information about service times. The public were not only forbidden to attend but more recently, they erected large steel fences and automatic gates –which were manned by guards to ensure that no one outside of the sect got in. An Australian TV crew recently tried to get into one of their churches and was taken as far as the building forecourt and then warned off. Another attempt even more recently resulted in the film crew being dangerously chased in cars driven by the Brethren and the Brethren perpetrators faced the courts for their actions.
· They established their own schools only a handful of years ago to closet their children from worldly contamination. It has nothing to do with providing a superior form of education. As none of these children will ever be permitted to attend a university –it may well be a pointless exercise at any rate. The schools are all overseen by a Brethren leader to ensure total compliance to the strict curriculum, which, forbids certain knowledge streams. These schools are another reason they wish to achieve charitable status as their funding is a burden on the group.
· The Brethren –be they Exclusive or the slightly less innocuous sounding Plymouth varieties are in fact a closed sect of people who freely admit they have a hatred of the world. Their leader says so regularly in published ministry. They have no problem accepting public funding for their schools, in receiving rates free status on their halls or in accepting grants and other government handouts for their activities. They hate the world and yet they will take every financial benefit from it that they can.
If the Commission gives these people what they want it will be a sad day for the many people whom they have dealt with so cruelly. There have been dozens of suicides and many thousands of wrecked lives because of the Brethren. They are not an open, normal, Christian church. They are lead by one man who rules them quite ruthlessly and who demands their compliance.
At very least –talk to some of these people. We can be contacted through this website and will be happy to provide the other side of the story and some truths about this evil group that seeks your favour today.
There is a view held that the true Church of God should not involve itself with the state in any way. This view may not be commonly held but that, as you know, does not mean it is wrong.
Some years ago a small (18 page) leaflet entitled “Covenanting?” was privately published by a believing gent and distributed throughout the UK to those who were interested. I copy below a few words of extract from that booklet:
“Light and Darkness in Communion”
“ We wish to demonstrate to the true church the awful confederacy commonly effected in these days between the Redeemed of the Lord and the State. We refer in particular to the scheme to increase ‘giving’ through the questionable favour of the Charity Commission and H M Inspector of Taxes. In order to do this we would compare the behaviour of some of our brethren of old, and in particular Abraham & Ezra.
We would quote from scripture, the reply of Abraham to the King of Sodom, after the battle in the King’s Dale (see Gen Ch 14 v 22, 23).
If the people of God will turn and give attention to the behaviour of Abraham in this time of testing, recorded for our instruction, we should be ashamed to blushing, and be ready to confess to the Lord that we have failed, and that miserably, in this our day. Especially so, when we are those who hold that we have to our hand the entire revelation of the will of The Lord for His people. We would discover that this record is a rebuke to us, leading us to turn about, and in the mercy of God see Calvary afresh, and be there encouraged to confess ourselves to be strangers and pilgrims here and to openly esteem the reproach of Christ better that the State Bounty. …………………
“Those chief in the trespass”
We do not refer so much to the individual believer, though he is a vital link in the matter, but speak mainly of those ‘princes and rulers in Israel’ who are chief in the trespass, leading the people of God to mingle with the people of the land. We of course speak of those trusted and appointed by the church in the local situation, to deal with such matters, and we are afraid that in these days, this number also so includes those who are sup[posed to ‘rule and labour in the word and doctrine’; for we can be assured that the idea of entering into a covenant with the State rarely come from the man in the pew! ……………….
………. So they (the church officers) introduce the matter to the people at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. They advise the people that they do not have to give more, but simply tell the ‘world’ what you are giving to the service of God, and they will also give in proportion to your giving. If any questions are asked about the Lord’s sermon on the Mount, as to ‘left hand and right hand’, the answer is that, that command touches the giving of alms, the principle does not obtain in giving to the church. Indeed the whole is a laudable proposal, and away we go.”
Rules have changed since the days in which the leaflet was produced, but the system remains and is widely ‘used’ by the church of God to swell the coffers. On the one hand the church states that their Lord is all sufficient BUT only with help from the state in matters of finance. One reason, I would suggest, for the condition of the believing church in this country today who, in so doing, group themselves with so many other ‘charitable causes’ such as Stonewall etc.
Why should our Lord abundantly bless such a wayward church?
Stephen,
I’m sorry to say that I believe your stance on this is wrong.
The FIRST duty of man is not to feed the poor or give medicine to the sick, praiseworthy though those actions are. The FIRST duty of man is to worship the Triune God. Only if we love God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength can we then love our neighbour as ourselves.
Even if all (apparently) a church ever does is to worship Jesus Christ each Lord’s Day then it is doing far more societal good to its neighbours (both rich and poor) than any other so-called charity. Love for our neighbour BEGINS WITH the worship of the true God. To obstruct that worship is to hate our neighbour – but that’s exactly what the Charity Commission is setting out to do.
Charity law in the UK has redefined charity such that unless any purpose is “for the public benefit” (as defined by the commissioners themselves) then it is NOT charitable. While the “the advancement of religion” is listed as a prima facie charitable purpose it cannot be such unless it is “for the public benefit”.
Furthermore, religion has been redefined in the Charities Act:
“(a) in paragraph [2](c) “religion” includes—
(i) a religion which involves belief in more than one god, and
(ii) a religion which does not involve belief in a god;”
This action of the Charities Commission is nothing other than a demonic attack upon the Church and Christians ought to be opposing it with every fibre of their beings.
I agree that love for our neighbour begins with the worship of the true God, but it does not end there, IMHO, because scripture always links the believing to its outworking in the doing:
Eccl 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Matt 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
The Charities Act definition of ‘religion’ is entirely accurate. Even atheism is correctly a religion by that definition. Our job is to show the Charity Commission that these false religions do not benefit the public, but only their members.
And let us always watch that the expression of our faith in works does not become an end in itself. The danger of incarnational theology has always been that dear Christian folk begin to forget Christ’s Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension.
The Hales Exclusive Brethren do not deserve charitable status. They are completely different to Open Plymouth Brethren who do deserve charitable status. The Hales Exclusive Brethren have changed their name to try and deceive everybody that they are open and charitable. They are very clever in duping not only the public but also MP’s and trying to slyly change the opinion of the Charity Commissioners.
These people break up families and are a closed cult.
F.F.
I too was brought up with Exclusive Brethren, leaving them in the wake of a scandal that occurred in 1970. There was much that was commendable about them, including their friendliness and hospitality within their own circle, their knowledge of and respect for the Scriptures, their desire to be unspotted from the world. But I believe they took a wrong turn in 1932/3 by expelling the Chinese Christian leader Watchman Nee for daring to break bread with members of another fellowship.- thereby reinforcing the view that had developed that we alone were free from “iniquity”. I believe it was this pretentiousness that was their downfall.
Since then the doctrine of separation from iniquity has been pressed to extreme, so that communication is actively discouraaged. Yet I believe some of them still preach the Gospel in the open air, though what happens to anyone who responds is a question since strangers are not allowed in any of their meetings (unless that has changed recently).
In reply to Poster Donald Burling in the post above
To understand the present day doctrine and practices of the Hales Exclusive Brethren (I refuse to call them the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, because that is a false, deceitful name, invented only in Sept 2012), it is unfortunately necessary to go back deep into their history.
Donald, is 100% correct in his assessment that the Brethren really took a wrong turn under the leadership of James Taylor Senior during the 1930’s, although they had been on a wrong path ever since blindly adulating JN Darby.
During the 1930’s under James Taylor Senior, they took a distinctly sectarian, separatist route away from the rest of the Christian Church. The “Watchman Nee, affair” (a missionary from China), was a classic horrifying example of this.
What was Watchman Nee’s crime ? He became friendly with key Brethren figures at the time and was invited to the UK and US. During his visit in the UK he “broke bread” at the Lord’s Table with the Brethren and then also with a church not associated with the Exclusive Brethren, but known to Nee. As a result the Exclusive brethren took issue and he and the Chinese Christians were “withdrawn from” for associating, fellowshiping and communing with other Christians !
The letters written at the time from senior Brethren figures including James Taylor Senior, were the epitome of a closed sectarian group, which wanted nothing to do with other Christians and other Christian Churches.
To get a feel for the attitudes of the Exclusive Brethren back in the 1930’s, which grew steadily worse though the later “Universal Leadership” of James Taylor Junior and Symington, and now Bruce Hales, please look at the following link
http://peebs.net/forums/the-library/chinaman-watchman-nee-and-jt-in-the-dirty-30s#post-12518
This link contains copies of the letters written by the Exclusive Brethren to Watchman Nee and the Christians in China. Please also research the following books, which contain even more details
“Back To The Cross” by Watchman Nee, by Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc, New York, printed in 1988.
“Against The Tide” published by Kingsway Publications of the UK, first printed in 1973, reprinted 1990 – Written by Angus Kinnear
Contrary to the opinion propagated by some with a vested interest, peebs.net actually contains a vast wealth of documented verifiable evidence about all aspects of Exclusive Brethrenism through the ages.
[…] Churches should benefit the public […]
I was an ardent member of the Exclusive Brethren but my wife and I were ostracised for nearly a year for simply asking a question about procedure for interpreting for the deaf. Within 2 months of being readmitted for this misdemeanor I got put out against my will for “having an old leprosy” i.e. a sin that could not be forgiven. This was an unfounded, unsubstantiated charge. My wife was made to leave me. I was prohibited from going to their meetings, and friends and relatives (including my twin brother) were not allowed to contact me. I was made to get a separation and my wife was prohibited from even speaking to me. That was 35 years ago!
These people are a private club and should be regarded in the same way by the Charity Commission. Their rebranding is put a stop to the possible drop in their income.