The following letter is an individual response to the recently published Jackson Wells paper, ‘Into the Light: understanding the Exclusive Brethren’. This letter was copied to Peebs.Net by an individual who was once a member of the Exclusive Brethren cult. As far as we know, there has not been a reply.

From: [removed]

Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:42 PM

To: kjackson@jacksonwells.com.au

Cc: info@peebs.net

Subject: Exclusive Brethren

Please could the following be directed to Ben Haslem.

FTAO: Benjamin Haslem

Dear Benjamin,

I read with interest your article - Into the Light: understanding the Exclusive Brethren

I have had years of involvement with the Exclusive Brethren and may be able to help you. I do not wish to denigrate what you have written in your article, I would rather seek to assist you in your endeavours to portray the truth regarding this little-known sect. I am very aware that it is difficult to understand the Exclusive Brethren as they are, by nature and intention, secretive. They prefer to be out of the limelight and not subject to criticism. They do not enjoy engaging in debate and discussion with those outside the sect. They are much more comfortable with confrontation that can be resolved through finance or intimidation, rather than through merit. You are unlikely to find members of the Brethren involved in open debate with the wider community, freely engaged with religious scholars, or willingly discussing theology with any other faith groups. But you will often see them in a courtroom, they have a long history of litigious behaviour. You will also note that they employ eminent lawyers and public relations consultants.

Unfortunately, there are statements in your article that are misleading or untrue. I would like to take this opportunity to help you, and to correct these errors. Also, many people who have been victims of the Exclusive Brethren’s disciplinary activities may find some of your statements offensive. I would like to help you to be accurate and thus be sensitive to these victims. I will comment on your writing by way of interjection, I trust that you find it useful.

“In early 2007, senior members of the Exclusive Brethren Christian Fellowship approached Jackson Wells seeking assistance dealing with a sudden and intense increase in media interest in their small Christian church.”

This sudden and intense increase in interest was possibly brought about by what many would describe as the Exclusive Brethren’s underhand, amateur and secretive venture into politics. They are naturally entitled to have political interests and give support to political parties. But their tendency to be dishonest and deceitful, is what drew the attention of commentators, politicians and the media. To some extent we can forgive them, political campaigning of this scale is new for them – however, dishonesty and deceit is not. I would advise the Brethren to exercise their right to vote for the politician or party that they would prefer to see in office. I would also suggest to them that they refrain from dishonesty, and embrace the open and democratic structure that we in the democratic world enjoy.

“The media scrutiny was driven by unsuccessful attempts on the part of Greens Senator Bob Brown to hold a Parliamentary inquiry into the Brethren, which has about 13,000 members in Australia.”

I would suggest that the scrutiny of the media and others was not driven by the attempts of Bob Brown to hold an inquiry. The media have scrutinised the Exclusive Brethren before, during, and after Bob Brown’s views were presented, and have been based on topics that have been raised by a variety of concerned people – Bob was just one of many.

“It was alleged by the Greens that the Brethren had breached Australian electoral laws, although subsequent investigations by the Australian Electoral Commission and Australian Federal Police led to no action being taken against the Church or any of its members. Not that this silenced the critics.”

It is, of course, still possible that the Brethren breached electoral laws in different countries with their political ventures, the fact that the AEC and AFP investigations have led to no further action at this point in time does not prove that breaches did not occur. I also do not believe that this should silence the critics – if they have a view they should remain free to express it.

“During this time, a number of outrageous and false claims were levelled at the Church by several media outlets mostly tabloid – and a handful of disaffected former Church members.

“The allegations ranged from the serious – that the Church was a cult, that it covered up cases of abuse, that it deliberately and systematically broke up families, that it ran its own schools to indoctrinate children to the silly that it banned the use of computers and had a disproportionate level of influence over then Prime Minister John Howard.”

You highlight the fact that the critical media were mostly of the tabloid format, how is this relevant? This format may have a reputation for being more colourful and sensational in the portrayal of facts, or less truthful than their broadsheet counterparts, as such you could imply a reduction in factual accuracy. If one adheres to the truth, then the requirement to resort to this kind of spin depreciates. Most of the accusations to which you refer are actually true – I have firsthand knowledge. In my opinion, it is very weak to defend the accusations made against the Exclusive Brethren by associating the accusers with the format of the media to imply inaccuracy. It is generally better to argue with facts, if your facts are accurate then you are likely to win the argument. The very fact that you have resorted to other means may be seen by some as an admission that your claims may not be robust enough to withstand debate.

Let us expand upon the accusations that you have chosen to focus on.

Are the Exclusive Brethren a cult? According to the majority of reputable definitions of a cult, the Exclusive Brethren fit the criteria extremely well. To list it as the first ‘outrageous claim’ may be misleading, to most observers, they are a cult.

Do the Exclusive Brethren cover up cases of abuse? There are many reported cases of this being true. I have firsthand knowledge of one such case. Again, it may be misleading, and possibly hurtful to the many victims, to list this as an outrageous and false claim.

Do the Exclusive Brethren deliberately and systematically break up families? The Exclusive Brethren have two official levels of ‘assembly discipline’. The lower level is what they call ‘Shut Up’. In this state the ‘offender’ has no communication with his family and is forbidden to attend any Exclusive Brethren meetings. They are periodically checked by ‘priests’ who will determine whether or not they are suitable for fellowship. If it is deemed that they are not it is likely that they will be ‘Withdrawn From’. This is full disfellowship, no family contact, no meeting attendance, possible loss of home and employment, and no visits from ‘priests’. If that person had written a gospel hymn, then that hymn would be ‘crossed out’, not sung, and not published in future editions of the Exclusive Brethren’s hymnbook. Both forms of punishment break the family unit and this is not a rare occurrence, I have firsthand knowledge of scores of examples. There are a variety of offences that have resulted in either of these disciplines: use of a computer, disagreement with the teaching of the current or former Elect Vessel, having or watching a television or radio, eating with a non-member, or simply being out-of-favour. A false accusation may be made for power or political reasons. The list of offences changes over time; new things become disallowed and previous transgressions become acceptable. There is also another ‘unofficial’ level of discipline. The hierarchal structure of the Exclusive Brethren is played out in the seating arrangements in the meeting rooms. Many brothers (men) who have had leading roles (and as such occupy the inner seating in a meeting hall), will find themselves ‘out of favour’ and having to occupy the outer seating towards the sisters (women).

You state that the accusers are a handful of disaffected Church members. This terminology suggests a low number of resentful former Exclusive Brethren. The truth is that there are many former members and many who have never been members who freely express their concerns. There are also many, many more who are not willing to openly express their views as they believe that it would result in the minimal contact allowed with loved ones being completely stopped or that they would be sued by the Exclusive Brethren. May I suggest that you have been contacted by a small number of Exclusive Brethren leaders who are fearful of the truth about them being exposed? Wherever it came from, your information does not accurately match the reality. It may be worth remembering that the Exclusive Brethren have a lot to lose if the truth about their practices is out – they are known to have invested heavily in silencing critics. When one leaves the sect, the need for secrecy and deception falls away. If you really want the truth about the Exclusive Brethren, speak to former members – the Exclusive Brethren themselves are not famed for their honesty.

The Exclusive Brethren do run their own schools and it was originally (according to an EB I spoke to at the time) so that the children did not have to touch a computer. To meet the requirements of the curriculum they had worldly teachers actually touch them while the pupils watched.

“The Brethren did not ask Jackson Wells to spin them to a better life or to protect them against legitimate criticism. What dismayed and worried them was that they were being accused of activity that was immoral, sometimes criminal and which ran counter to the tenets of Christianity.”

Being accused of such things will naturally worry them. But I do not believe that denial of fact is the best way forward. I would suggest that you research the Exclusive Brethren a little, join internet forums, speak to those that know them well. A relatively small amount of investigation would have shown your statements above to be misleading at the very minimum.

“At the heart of Jackson Wells’ strategy to assist the Brethren was to increase the Church’s engagement with the wider community, mainly through the media.

“We wanted to explain the Church’s beliefs and its members’ lifestyle, demythologize falsehoods and misunderstandings, and show the connectedness of the Church to the community.”

May I reiterate here the urgent need for you to research this sect. If you are to present such information as this then, in my opinion, you should obtain correct information before you publish. There are many who would be willing to help you.

“Brethren members interact closely with the non-Brethren community everyday. They employ mostly non-Brethren people in their businesses, their customers and suppliers are mostly non-Brethren and teachers in their schools do not belong to the Church.

“However, the Brethren adhere to a doctrine of separation which prevents members from socialising with people with whom they cannot share Holy Communion.

“Brethren consider sitting down to a meal to be Holy Communion, so they cannot share a meal with people outside their fellowship. Nor do Brethren members join associations such as golf clubs or vote in elections.”

This may sound contradictory and may require some clarification to prevent it misleading the reader. Close interaction with, and separation from, appear opposing statements. The interaction with non-members is restricted to what is absolutely necessary. Wherever possible, the Exclusive Brethren employ sect members in their businesses. Teachers have a requirement to be suitably educated, as Exclusive Brethren are not permitted to attend university or obtain a degree it is of necessity that they employ outside of the sect.

“The Church does not seek to impose its views on others nor does it believe that other people are beyond the pail. In a political and social sense, the Brethren are conservative and happy to be described as such.”

The above comments indicate some misunderstanding in my opinion. Separation will always impose the sect’s views on others. There are many families who are split as a result of the doctrine of separation, as such there are many who long to see their loved ones and are not able to due to the sect’s teaching. There are several hundred such cases where the choice to break the family is not with the non-member. The practices of splitting the family and shunning that is taught by the leaders is, in my opinion, imposing the Exclusive Brethren’s view on others.

“It is fair to say that the Brethren’s initial steps into the media spotlight were tentative.

“However, in September 2008, Church elder Daniel Hales gave a number of extensive media interviews to The Australian, ABC Radio National and Australian Associated Press explaining the Brethren’s beliefs and activities.”

I heard Daniel explaining the beliefs and activities of the Exclusive Brethren. I am aware that some of what he said was untrue, and much of it misleading. I can understand that it may not be in his interest to be honest, and that he is not speaking under oath in such situations, but if your intent is to demythologize falsehoods and misunderstandings, then I do not believe that Daniel’s interviews will further your cause.

“At a local level, a number of Brethren have developed good working relationships with journalists on suburban papers and local Church members respond immediately to issues that crop up in their own neighbourhoods.

“This has been complemented by the unprompted actions of non-Brethren neighbours, customers, suppliers and employees in writing to newspapers or contacting journalists to defend a group of people they consider to be hard-working, honest and decent folk.

“The Brethren Church still has some way to travel in gaining an accurate public understanding of the lifestyle of its members. The mythology and inaccurate reporting about its beliefs and practices are well entrenched. Also, being a small group with what is in some respects an unusual lifestyle, the Church is an easy target.

“Jackson Wells’ association with a Church whose members are hard working, decent Australians has shown us that intolerance and sectarianism still prevail in some sections of our society, a society which prides itself on giving people a fair go but which, from time to time, can act very unfairly indeed.”

I trust that my comments are useful, I too would like to see accurate commentary on the Exclusive Brethren.

May I suggest that you do two things with some urgency. Firstly, research the Exclusive Brethren. Communicate with those who know them well and have no need to hide the truth. Read well-written books such as: Behind The Exclusive Brethren, by Michael Bachelard, Behind Closed Doors, by Ngaire Thomas, Breakout-How I escaped from the Exclusive Brethren, by David Tchappat. Engage in open discussion with former members, many can be contacted via the forums of a very useful website setup to support victims of Exclusive Brethren abuse – http://www.peebs.net. Secondly, remove the comments that may prolong the suffering of past, present, and future victims of the sect. The suggestion that the Exclusive Brethren do not cover up abuse is likely to be very hurtful to the abused. Publishing this kind of comment may also have the effect of prolonging the practice of abuse, I am sure that this is not your intention. Also the suggestion that the Exclusive Brethren do not break up families is likely to be very hurtful to those who are missing their loved ones. Publishing this kind of comment may also have the effect of prolonging the Exclusive Brethren’s practice of family break ups.

Please give careful consideration to the possibility that by your publication you may be partly responsible for increasing the suffering of many victims – this is my greatest concern! Playing a part in the concealment of truth, particularly when the result is the abuse of many innocent victims, is something I abhor. This may be due to your misunderstanding of the sect and why I urge that you research them. I understand that there must also be a business temptation to engage with a client who has significant wealth and a substantial will to present themselves in a different way than they are publicly perceived, but this may ultimately be damaging to your organisation. Others have found this to be true.

I hope that this is useful and I wish you well in your efforts to establish the truth about the Exclusive Brethren – it will not be easy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

[name removed]

cc. http://www.peebs.net

The author may be contacted directly by writing to Peebs.Net at info@peebs.net and providing a Subject: Open Letter to Jackson Wells. Otherwise, a public forum exists for this response at and your comments are invited.

At least one other letter was sent to Jackson Wells by outraged members of the ex-Exclusive Brethren Community and this letter will be presented here tomorrow – a letter that brilliantly refutes the words of a spin-doctor and also points directly to events over the past few weeks that show, for the Exclusive Brethren at least, nothing has changed.

Be Sociable, Share!

•