Exclusive Brethren forced to alter building design

June 30th, 2009
Wagga City Council in Australia have granted planning permission for a new Exclusive Brethren Meeting Room but with some unprecedented conditions and stipulations.
There are components of humor in some of the terms, particularly to ex-members of the cult.  For example, the cult is only allowed to have 6:00 am Sunday communion services for a trial period and following the trial, the earliest allowed time of service will be 8:00 am. The ridiculously early Sunday morning communion service was invented by the American James Taylor Junior, cult leader from 1960 until his death from alcohol-related illness in 1970.  Needless to say, a 6:00am Sunday meeting was unpopular to most.  It will be most interesting to see if the Exclusive Brethren succeed in lifting the condition after 3 months.
Wagga City Council also demanded that the EB place windows on at least two sides of the proposed structure – the council stressed that the Exclusives were to give the building ’street appeal’, even to the extent of placing a door ‘real or false’ to assist the effect. A modern Exclusive Brethren Meeting Room is probably the least attractive building you’ll ever see – windowless, a large front door, surrounded by high security fencing, security lights and a padlocked steel-barred gate.  Even the sign is unwelcoming.
The council also restricted the maximum number attending any service to 50 and demanded that lighting only be used when services were being held.
All in all, the Exclusive Brethren may have received the planning permission they wanted, but it was at quite a cost!
It is unknown whether the residents plan to query the tax-exemption for the new Meeting Room.  The news article for the Daily Advertiser states that the building is designed to be a public place of worship.  As all who have attempted to attend an Exclusive Brethren service know, this is easier said than done. Both gates and doors are locked during services and visitors would have to endure screening visits and interviews following a request to attend one of their meetings.
We wonder whether to residents of Bourkelands fully understand that they will be subsidising this structure as a tax-exempt building – a building which will do exactly nothing for the general community although defined as a ‘public place of worship’.
See Controversy over church

June 30th, 2009

Wagga City Council in Australia have granted planning permission for a new Exclusive Brethren Meeting Room but with some unprecedented conditions and stipulations.

There are components of humor in some of the terms, particularly to ex-members of the cult.  For example, the Exclusive Brethren are only allowed to have 6:00 am Sunday communion services for a trial period and following the trial, the earliest allowed time of service will then be 8:00 am. The ridiculously early Sunday morning communion service was invented by the American James Taylor Junior, cult leader from 1960 until his death from alcohol-related illness in 1970.  Needless to say, a 6:00 am Sunday meeting was unpopular to most.  It will be most interesting to see if the Exclusive Brethren succeed in lifting the condition after 6 months.
Read complete article »»

Posted under news by Peebs.Net 30.06.2009
No comment »

Exclusive Brethren Instructions to the Family Court – 2005

Many have been outraged at the recent Australian Family Court decision to separate an ex-member of the cult from his children. Most will look squarely at the Judge responsible and ask how this could happen?  But this is only the latest case in a series of similar lawsuits.

The Exclusive Brethren do not recruit; they do not evangelise in order to increase membership. They increase from within. Great pressure is brought to bear on the young to marry and produce offspring. The resulting children are their future – estimated to be approximately 17,000 strong following the 1970 Aberdeen Incident, the cult today numbers in excess of 46,000 worldwide in over 10 countries.

The Exclusive Brethren protect their young with survivalist intensity. Putting their (and tax-payer) money where their mouth is, they have created a large international network of fiercely private schools that are there for one sole purpose – to keep their children separate from the outside ‘evil’ world.  It is more than ironic that the Exclusive Brethren have to recruit non-member teachers to operate their growing number of schools as there is a worldwide ban on attending university for all children. The cult’s educational trusts are monitored closely by Exclusive Brethren ‘volunteers’ to ensure that there is no deviation from a carefully constructed EB-approved syllabus.

Dated January 2005, the following submission was made to Australian Parliament’s Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by the Exclusive Brethren following a request by then Senator Evans.  ((See original submission at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/estimates/add_0607/ag/qon_18.pdf)
It lays out clearly their tactical approach to Family Court cases.
It would seem that Judge Brown followed the Exclusive Brethren tactical roadmap to the letter.
COMMENTS ON ASPECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S 10 NOVEMBER 2003 DISCUSSION PAPER
– A NEW APPROACH TO THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM
– IMPLEMENTATION OF REFORMS
Key Points:
The key points made in this submission are:
• The importance of the institution of marriage must be paramount in family law issues;
• The concept of a child’s rights is wider than assumed in the discussion paper;
• The time a parenting agreement can be entered into must be examined;
• The age at which a child’s wishes should be seriously considered must be reviewed and a younger child should not be subjected to radical lifestyle changes without compelling reasons.
The following are important matters that we firmly believe must be taken into account in evaluating the proposals for change put forward in the Discussion Paper.
1. The institution of marriage
In any discussion of issues relating to family law it is essential to take as the starting point the importance of the institution of marriage in Australia and the need to prevent the institution falling into further disregard. That the institution of marriage in this country has been seriously weakened is well described by one commentator as follows:
At the heart of the growing disarray of the Australian family is the decay of marriage…..
Family breakdown represents a massive body of child and adult misery and unhappiness. It is a common factor in wider social problems of crime, suicide, violence, poverty, child abuse and educational underperformance.
Over the last 30 years, marriage and family life have been transformed by a variety of social, cultural and economic changes. In conjunction with the advent of no-fault divorce in 1975, these changes have powerfully contributed to the fragility of marriage.”
(Barry Maley: Reforming Divorce Law, Centre of Independent Studies, Issue Analysis No. 39, 1 September 2003)
Against this background, the amendment of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) last year by the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 to specifically enact a definition of “marriage” for the purposes of Australian law (the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life) and to define certain relationships that will not be recognised in this country as a marriage even if they are so recognised in another country, was a significant development which we wholeheartedly support.
Parliament has, therefore, correctly in our view, made it very clear that the institution of marriage is basic to our society. Just as physical violence, whether against the other party of the marriage and/or the child(ren), is an important factor in relation to the welfare of children, so too, it is submitted, can what could be called “moral” violence to the institution of marriage, and in particular, the elements of the exclusion of all others and for life, as occurs all too frequently.
2. Children’s “rights”
The discussion paper (at page 10) states that the Government proposes to strengthen the underlying principles of children having a “right” to be known and cared for by both parents and a “right” to contact on a regular basis with both their parents and other people significant to them, subject always to the best interests of the child.
This proposal is stated as a “right” of a child. The nature of this “right”, however, needs to be articulated. Is it some abstract right or is it a more tangible right which a child can him or herself have a say in in appropriate circumstances? It is submitted that the concept of the “right” of a child extends to a child of suitable age being able to have substantial weight, sometimes decisive weight, placed on what his or her wishes are as to matters that effect his or her life, including living arrangements, contact, etc. See also 6 below.
3. Parenting Plans
The discussion paper (again at p. 10) states that the Government supports shared parenting and wants people to reach agreements about parenting, rather than using the courts. An issue, not address in the discussion paper, is at what point a parenting plan or agreement can be agreed to by the parties to the marriage.
For instance, can such a plan, whether comprehensive or not, be entered into at any time before the marriage breakdown, as in the case of financial arrangements? If, for example, at the time of marriage both parents have a common purpose as to one or more aspects of the lives of their children, why should this not be able to be put into a parenting plan, subject to appropriate safeguards? Or if not, why could not a parenting plan be entered into at some later time before the marriage breakdown?
To take the last point a step further, if parents are agreed on parental responsibility issues for their child(ren) (health, schooling, religion and so on) and have in fact given effect to this, this may effectively be a parenting plan or perhaps create some kind of rebuttable presumption. A child should not, without adequate and compelling grounds, be subject to a radical lifestyle change. Why should this not be a “right” of a child?
4. Equal shared parental responsibility
What the Government proposes is to make equal shared parental responsibility the starting point under the Family Law Act by making it a rebuttable presumption with the best interests of the child being the most important factor to be taken into account and decisions being made on the circumstances of each case. Having regard to what is said at 3, this proposal needs modification.
In addition, the proposed rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not represent a real advance and, indeed, could in many cases turn out to be detrimental. Such a rebuttable presumption will treat as being prima facie normal many situations that are not and may potentially place an “innocent” parent at a substantial disadvantage. After all, it is likely that where equal shared parental responsiblity is approriate, the parties will be in agrement between themselves in any event.
The discussion paper proposes that the rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility be replaced by an opposing rebuttable presumption where there is evidence of violence, abuse or entrenched conflict involved in the case. Some of these concepts would need to be defined which could cause difficulty. For example, “abuse” would cover more than physical abuse and the concept of “entrenched conflict” is rather nebulous. For instance, is entrenched conflict meant to refer to some long standing conflict or could the nature of the issue in relation to which the conflict exists be sufficient to make it “entrenched” in appropriate circumstances?
5. Substantially shared parenting time
The proposed requirement that the Court consider substantially shared parenting time when both parents want half or more of the time with their child will need to be refined. But more fundamentally, having regard to what is submitted is the right of a child and what is stated above, particularly at 2, this proposal is deficient.
The compulsory dispute resolution mechanism that is proposed in the discussion paper (at page 12) will carry with it a sanction of a possible adverse cost order if the compulsory dispute resolution requirement is not complied with. It is submitted that this should be the only possible downside to a parent who does not attend “Dispute Resolution” and that this should be specifically stated in the legislation.
6. The age of a child
Insufficient attention has been directed to the possibility of making more appropriate provision for the wishes of a child to be determined and given effect to.
It is recognised in the discussion paper that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration and for something to be forced on a child against the child’s wishes and without adequate reason appears to be contrary to the “right” of a child which is referred to elsewhere in the discussion paper. As submitted above, in the case of a younger child, there should not be drastic lifestyle changes without adequate reason.
Date: 13 January 2005
[Committee note - The submission by the Exclusive Brethren to the family law reforms consultation process, received on 13 January 2005, is attached. The names and contact details of the persons signing the submission on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren have been omitted for privacy reasons.]

It is therefore vital to protect the young assets, those whom the Exclusive Brethren are raising protectively within themselves, behind intentionally closed doors. With this in mind, they weed out the troublemakers (normally young men) and do their utmost to prevent any further contamination of the cult’s ideas and doctrinal restrictions.

Dated January 2005, the following submission was made to Australian Parliament’s Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by the Exclusive Brethren following a request by then Senator Evans.  ((See original submission at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/estimates/add_0607/ag/qon_18.pdf)

It lays out clearly their tactical approach to Family Court cases.

COMMENTS ON ASPECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S 10 NOVEMBER 2003 DISCUSSION PAPER

– A NEW APPROACH TO THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM

– IMPLEMENTATION OF REFORMS

Key Points:

The key points made in this submission are:

• The importance of the institution of marriage must be paramount in family law issues;

• The concept of a child’s rights is wider than assumed in the discussion paper;

• The time a parenting agreement can be entered into must be examined;

• The age at which a child’s wishes should be seriously considered must be reviewed and a younger child should not be subjected to radical lifestyle changes without compelling reasons.


Read complete article »»

Posted under Background, comment, news by Peebs.Net 29.06.2009
No comment »

Exclusive Brethren rip yet another family apart

June 28th, 2009
In Australia’s The Age today, Michael Bachelard author of the acclaimed ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren’, presents a heartbreaking report that proves beyond doubt that the Exclusive Brethren cult will go to any length to rip families apart.
In an astonishing judgement in Melbourne, Justice Brown allowed the cult to legally prevent their excommunicated father from having anything further to do with his two children.  As is usual in these cases, the Exclusive Brethren spared no effort or cost in their legal campaign:
“… The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne’s top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor… “
Read the full article in todays Sunday Age:
Ex-Brethren father loses battle for children
The Age
Michael Bachelard
June 28, 2009 – 12:00AM
A grieving father’s only contact with his Exclusive Brethren children will be permission to buy their photographs from the sect’s school, as long as they are not there at the time, a Family Court judge has ruled.
Justice Sally Brown has comprehensively ruled against the father, who can be known only as Peter, denying him any contact with his son, 15, and daughter, 10, after a five-year court battle, waged mostly in their home state of Tasmania.
After spending $100,000 winning court orders in 2006 for access, then trying unsuccessfully to enforce them, Peter could only afford to represent himself in the most recent retrial.
The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne’s top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor.
The church’s “doctrine of separation” prevents people who have left the fold having any relationship with those still inside, including their own children.
Early in 2007, Justice Robert Benjamin sentenced the mother and two male relatives to four-month suspended jail sentences for failing to encourage the children to go with their father. These sentences were overturned on appeal.
Justice Brown’s judgment, delivered in Melbourne on Thursday, ruled for the Brethren mother because during the course of the case the children’s relationship with the father had broken down, and there was no prospect of re-establishing it.
The judge blamed the father for this, saying that his attempts to make sure that earlier court orders were obeyed had alienated the children from him and that parts of his application were “cruel and punitive” towards the children.
The mother fell ill with a recurrence of breast cancer after Justice Benjamin’s ruling in 2007, and the “family narrative” blamed the father for this.
“It is clear that the mother attributes responsibility for the recurrence of her cancer, at least in part, to the trauma she experienced when sentenced,” Justice Brown said. Whether or not this was true was “less relevant than its currency in the home”.
The daughter had “taken on board” this message and had torn up and returned a card her father had sent her, saying if he wanted her to be happy “he should just leave us alone”.
However, she rejected the father’s suggestion that the Exclusive Brethren had prompted this behaviour, despite evidence over many years that the sect encourages young children to reject their lapsed parents.
In 2006, a court-appointed psychologist described the Brethren’s attempts to turn the children against Peter as “psychologically cruel, unacceptable and abusive” to the children and at “the highest end of psychological abuse”.
But Justice Brown’s views on the Brethren were generally positive: their religious conviction was as “vital to them as the air they breathe”, and “they perceive a life lived outside their faith as unsustainable”. She questioned whether it was their policy to remove children from non-Brethren parents, quoting a report to her that said that “the church says in its publication this is not the case”.
Justice Brown said it was false to think, as the father did, that this case was “a duel between law and religion”.
The father said the few times he had had contact, the children had “warmed up” to him, but the opinion of a court-appointed consultant, Ineke Stierman, was that the daughter’s “youth and courtesy explain her relatively polite responses”. As for the son, one visit had ended with him curled in a foetal position in the cubby house and refusing to eat.
Having “nothing to do with them now might show ultimate caring”, Ms Stierman recommended.
Justice Brown accepted that the result of her judgment was that “the children will not spend time with anyone who speaks positively about the father”.
The father had applied for custody of both children but late in the case changed his position, asking for custody of his daughter and access to his son. The judge condemned this as “indicative of a significant lack of understanding of the children’s needs” .
The mother’s application was to have custody of the children until she died, following which they be cared for by an older sister and her husband.
Although Justice Brown did not rule on what would happen after the mother’s death, she agreed the children needed support by their extended family “during these traumatic years”, that the girl had bonded with her older sister, and that this must take priority over any relationship with the father, or “any questions about the Exclusive Brethren’s compliance with court orders”.
Although Ms Stierman suggested contact of “an hour or two, once or twice a year”, Justice Brown said she could see no benefit to that. Instead, Peter could, at his expense, be provided with a copy of their school reports, photos and newsletters as long he obtained them at a time when any family members “are not likely to be on the school premises”.
Asked by The Sunday Age if he had a message for his children, Peter, who himself grew up without a father because of the Brethren’s doctrine of separation, said: “I just want them to know I tried my best.”
The Exclusive Brethren declined to comment, saying it was a private family matter.
Michael Bachelard
The Age
Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/exbrethren-father-loses-battle-for-children-20090627-d0lc.html
This is most certainly not the first time that the Australian Family Court has caved in under the pressure tactics of the cult.  Retired Chief Justice of the Family Court Alistair Nicholson has spoken openly about the tactics the cult uses in the past:
Stephen Crittenden: Isn’t part of the problem that the Family Court has with the Exclusive Brethren, just the simple fact that the Exclusive Brethren don’t recognise the validity of the court, of the laws, and that there’s just a general sense, a problem of members of the Exclusive Brethren defying court orders?
Alistair Nicholson: Yes, and I think they can be dealt with by the usual method of punishment of people who do defy court orders. There’s no problem about that.
Read the full transcript on ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1871059.htm#anchor1
In 2007, ABC’s Four Corners broadcast ‘The Brethren Express’ (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2057172.htm) where some superb investigative journalism dug into the finances of the Exclsuive Brethren cult. Former Chief Justice Nicholson was interviewed again.  You can watch his extended interview and the full program on the Brethren Express website:  http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20071015/brethren/default.htm

June 28th, 2009

In Australia’s The Age today, Michael Bachelard author of the acclaimed ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren‘, presents a heartbreaking report that proves beyond doubt that the Exclusive Brethren cult will go to any length to rip families apart.

In an astonishing judgement in Melbourne, Justice Brown allowed the cult to legally prevent their excommunicated father from having anything further to do with his two children.  As is usual in these cases, the Exclusive Brethren spared no effort or cost in their legal campaign:

“… The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne’s top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor… “

Read the full article in todays Sunday Age:

Ex-Brethren father loses battle for children

The Age

Michael Bachelard

June 28, 2009 – 12:00AM

A grieving father’s only contact with his Exclusive Brethren children will be permission to buy their photographs from the sect’s school, as long as they are not there at the time, a Family Court judge has ruled.

Justice Sally Brown has comprehensively ruled against the father, who can be known only as Peter, denying him any contact with his son, 15, and daughter, 10, after a five-year court battle, waged mostly in their home state of Tasmania.

After spending $100,000 winning court orders in 2006 for access, then trying unsuccessfully to enforce them, Peter could only afford to represent himself in the most recent retrial.

The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne’s top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor.

The church’s “doctrine of separation” prevents people who have left the fold having any relationship with those still inside, including their own children.
Read complete article »»

Posted under comment, news by Peebs.Net 27.06.2009
4 comments »

An Anatomy of an Exclusive Brethren Meeting Room

The covered entrance to a typical Exclusive Brethren Meeting RoomThe Exclusive Brethren were formed when they broke away from the Plymouth Brethren in 1848 – not the other way round. It is estimated that there are approximately 1.5 million Plymouth Brethren meeting around the world today. They were once the main force behind missionary activity in many parts of the world. The Plymouth Brethren – often called Open Brethren to ensure their distinction from the notorious Exclusives – are easily distinguished by their friendly welcome, their evangelical bias, the windows in their Gospel Halls, the sound of a piano or organ accompanying their hymns and their sincere ‘All are welcome’ signs outside their indisputably tax-exempt premises.

There has been much confusion in various parts of the world between the Exclusive Brethren cult and the truly evangelical Plymouth Brethren. The Exclusives have encouraged this confusion, often calling themselves ‘Christian Brethren’ or the ‘Exclusive Brethren Christian Fellowship’ ! They also have started referring to their Meeting Rooms as ‘Prayer Halls’ and  ’Gospel Halls’ – a blatant attempt to mislead the Planning Authorities into thinking that this is to be the prime purpose of the sought permissions. Indeed, there has been a trend in physically renaming the legal names of their Meeting Rooms to Gospel Halls – even though tradition and legal documentation has historically always referred to the premises as a ‘Meeting Room’.

Probably the best way to ensure who you are dealing with is to simply look at the Trust Deed for the Meeting Room in question.

All Exclusive Brethren Meeting Rooms are owned by a Trust.

All Exclusive Brethren Meeting Room Trusts follow an identical template.

It is therefore entirely possible to recognize an Exclusive Brethren Meeting Room by checking the clauses within the Trust document. You will discover they are unlike any ‘church’ or ‘Christian organization’ you have ever seen:
Read complete article »»

Posted under Background, comment, news by Peebs.Net 25.06.2009
1 comment »

The Exclusive Brethren need educating

The Allbrook Education Trust (UK 1056053) is a Hampshire, UK Exclusive Brethren charitable trust, connected to the UK’s huge Exclusive Brethren Focus Learning Trust (UK 1099725).  Allbrook has had a difficult couple of years in finding suitable alternative accomodation for its growing educational needs.

Since the cult realized that its only future asset was their children in the 1980’s, the Exclusive Brethren have been implementing a home-school operation which evolved into an impressive world-wide chain of EB-only schools and educational trusts.

There is a component of desperation involved in the EB educational structure.  Their current worldwide leader, Australian Bruce Hales is quoted as admitting the Exclusive Brethren do not evangelize in order to recruit.  As far as they are concerned, growth will come from within – and that means the children must be protected from The Enemy.  By careful shifting of the limited genetic pool components, the EB have seemingly slowed a high tendency toward Downs Syndrome but still suffer from a very high incidence of Autism judging by their frequent Special Ed advertisements in various teaching journals.
Read complete article »»

Posted under comment, news by Peebs.Net 10.06.2009
No comment »

The Exclusive Brethren – A Short History

David Tchappat's 'Breakout: My Escape for the Exclusive Brethren'

Reproduced with permission from:

Breakout: How I escaped from the Exclusive Brethren

by David Tchappat (2009)

The following chapter was written by a former Exclusive Brethren member who wishes to remain anonymous.

A Short History of the Exclusive Brethren

There are many Christians known as “brethren” who trace the origins of their movement to John Nelson Darby who lived just over 200 years ago in Dublin. Schism and division has been a consistent feature of the movement almost from the start. The following summary relates to the Taylor-Symington-Hales Branch of the Exclusive Brethren (signified by the more recent leaders of this group); arguably the most radical and perhaps controversial of all the groups in the Brethren movement.

The Brethren trace the origins of the movement to John Nelson Darby who was born in London in 1800 into an aristocratic Anglo-Irish family. Lord Nelson, a friend of his uncle, Admiral Sir Henry Darby, was a sponsor at young Darby’s christening.

A young JNDDarby’s mother died when he was five years old and at the age of 15 his family moved to the ancestral estate in Ireland. He took an honours degree at Dublin University and studied law for three years at the Dublin Chancery Bar. But he never practiced law. To the annoyance of his family, he abandoned his legal career and became a priest in the Irish Church of England in 1826, serving in the parish of Calary in the mountains of County Wicklow.

Almost immediately John Darby fell out with church leaders over matters of doctrine and by 1827-28 he was meeting to “break bread” in the home of one of four other dissenting young men in Dublin. The group believed that the existence of an established church and ordained clergy was contrary to scripture. “I can find no such thing as a national church in Scripture”, Darby wrote at the time. In 1832, he had a major disagreement with Archbishop Magee about a requirement for converted Catholics to swear allegiance to King George IV and, in the same year, disagreed with Archbishop Whately about matters of church doctrine.
Read complete article »»

Posted under Background, Books, history by Peebs.Net 07.06.2009
1 comment »

Exclusive Brethren accept planning defeat in UK

June 4th, 2009

In a hoped-for but unexpected reversal, the Exclusive Brethren have given up their fight to build a significantly large compound on the outskirts of Stow in rural England.  Despite using their tactics of intentionally appearing to be part of the comparatively harmless ‘open’ Plymouth Brethren, over 400 members of the small Cotswold community objected fiercely to having the cult build one of their windowless fortresses in ground adjacent to a grocery supermarket.

The Exclusive Brethren have increasingly been trying to obfuscate their planning applications by referring to their Meeting Rooms as ‘gospel halls’ and even forming ‘gospel hall’ Trusts to add credence to their self-description of being an ‘evangelical christian’ movement. As the citizens of Stow came to realize, the planned development would not benefit anyone in the community due to the Exclusive Brethren doctrine of ‘Separation’ where anyone not a cult member is deemed ‘unclean’.

Their decision to withdraw a threatened appeal against the Stow Planning Committee’s refusal of their planning application is a welcome sign that municipalities are starting to understand the true nature of the group who have been accurately described as “an extremist cult and sect … who break up families“.

From the Tewkesbury Admag:

Brethren withdraw appeal against Stow gospel hall refusal

Tewksbury Admag, UK

Thursday 4th June 2009

by Simon Crump

A religious group has withdrawn its appeal against a refusal to approve its controversial proposal to build a gospel hall at Stow.
Read complete article »»

Posted under news by Peebs.Net 05.06.2009
1 comment »

Breakout – David Tchappat’s escape from the Exclusive Brethren

June 1st, 2009

David Tchappat's 'Breakout: My Escape for the Exclusive BrethrenWe were sent a copy of David Tchappat’s ‘Breakout: My Escape from the Exclusive Brethren’ and have just finished reading this 278 page book – officially released today.

David has written an unique autobiography in that it represents the first published story of life in the Exclusive Brethren during the last 30 years.  There have been a number of books written regarding life in the 1950’s and 1960’s, but David Tchappat was born after the Aberdeen Incident of 1970 and grew up in a brethren family in Australia under the iron-fisted rule of Neche, ND pig farmer James Symington and following his death, John Hales who is the father of Bruce Hales, the current Exclusive Brethren leader.

It is very much an Australian book – Aussie slang terms pepper the pages – non-Aussie readers will need to know the meaning of such words as ‘stoked‘, ‘bloke‘ and the visually effective ‘ropeable‘.

Written over a 5 year period, the autobiography covers the author’s upbringing in the Exclusive Brethren cult and his eventual departure as a 19 year old in the mid-1990’s. It is an important publication in that it is the most contemporary book detailing life within the EB.
Read complete article »»

Posted under Background, Personal Stories, comment by Peebs.Net 01.06.2009
6 comments »

Exclusive Brethren battle Peebs.Net in Vermont, USA

Examples of media attention focused on the Exclusive Brethren are very hard to find in the United States. The ability of the group that Kevin Rudd, now the Australian Prime Minister, described as “an extremist cult and sect” to “fly under the radar” is well-known.  Peebs.Net, has attempted to ‘pull back the covers’ since the site started in May 2004.  As you might imagine, this process has not been encouraged!

Unlike the USA, most citizens of Australia and New Zealand know of the Exclusive Brethren and of their track record in recent years. Perhaps the closest the US press came to looking at this “dangerous group” in any detail was following the secretive activities surrounding the ‘Thanksgiving 2004 Committee’, a political 527 group that funded pro- G.W. Bush advertisements in various US papers during the last president’s second run for office in 2004.

Today in Burlington, Vermont a news article appears that shows signs that this lack of exposure might change.  The Burlington Free Press describes what it calls a ‘Contentious Lawsuit’ that has been raging in the New England state since early 2007. 

As far as Peebs.Net is concerned, it is vital to maintain Truth and therefore,  it is interesting to note how quickly the Exclusive Brethren resort to the smear tactics that has brought them increasing negative press exposure in Australia and New Zealand.

It is estimated that there are now over 46,000 Exclusive Brethren members worldwide, with as many as 10,000 located in USA.  The closest North American Exclusive Brethren gatherings to Vermont are Boston, MA and Montreal, Quebec.

Secretive worldwide sect battles Vermonter in court

The Burlington Free Press, USA

By Sam Hemingway 

Free Press Staff Writer 

April 5, 2009

Timothy Twinam of Williston says he just wants to tell the truth about what’s really going on inside the Exclusive Brethren, a well-heeled, reclusive evangelical Christian group with 43,000 members around the world.

“This is a very closed group,” said Twinam, 54, a native of Great Britain. “They don’t circulate much with people, and over the years they’ve become ever more exclusive and cultish.”
Read complete article »»

Posted under news by Peebs.Net 05.04.2009
5 comments »

To Whom It May Concern – A Letter of Pain

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

A LETTER OF PAIN

I wish to emphasize that this factual account is not written in any spirit of revenge or vindictiveness against the Exclusive Brethren. In the spirit of Christ I have refrained from exposing those who were once my friends and associates and who through fear and ignorance were led astray by their leaders who demanded complete obedience and subservience. Apart from one letter to the Minister of Justice at the request of a Member of Parliament I have never taken steps to publicly expose or condemn those who have so ruined my life and the lives of others, but now I feel the time has come to speak out, as others are beginning to do, in order that more lives may not be destroyed.

I am now on my own and 76 years old. Nothing can ever make up for the misery I suffered, and am still suffering, from the cruel and heartless actions of The Exclusive Brethren. The time has come to speak out and have their alleged malpractices investigated.
Read complete article »»

Posted under Background, Personal Stories by Peebs.Net 04.04.2009
3 comments »

« previous
rss