
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.
Darby’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.
To Darby, separation from evil was the divine principle of faith, and there followed a litany of disagreements with others about doctrine – and an equally swift condemnation and separation from those with whom he could not agree. A major disagreement about discipline at the meeting of Brethren in Plymouth in 1848 resulted in a major fracture of the movement. The congregation split between those who became known as the “open brethren” and the “exclusive brethren” that followed Darby’s stricter lead. This split remains today and further divisions have occurred in both camps.
As a classically-trained scholar, Darby was a prolific writer. He made independent translations of the bible into English, German and French from the original texts, and compiled a comprehensive synopsis of the Bible. He wrote numerous hymns and essays and travelled widely on visits to assemblies (Brethren meeting groups) in Ireland, Europe, the United States, Canada, and the West Indies.
Darby died in April 1882 and Frederick E Raven, who had left the Church of England as a young man and was a member at John Darby’s local meeting in North London, later took up leadership. A scholarly man like Darby, Raven worked as Secretary of the Royal Naval College at Greenwich before his retirement in 1897. Unlike Darby, Raven was married and the father of a large family.
Although an even-tempered and humble man, Raven’s time in leadership was racked by disagreement and ongoing attacks by others over his teachings, particularly those relating to the state of eternal life and the nature of Christ as a person. After a visit to America in 1898 Raven was accused of heresy, blasphemy and “attacking the Person of the Son of God”. In declining health, he made a second visit to America in 1902 but he died less than a year later in August 1903. A young man named James Taylor from New York had paid a visit to Raven in England during Raven’s last illness and they spent a great deal of time together in discussions. James Taylor became the next world leader of the Exclusive Brethren.
James Taylor was born in 1870 in North West Ireland and was apprenticed in the linen trade. He migrated to New York as a young man and had six children by his wife, Estelle before she died in childbirth in 1901. Taylor remarried in 1913 and in about 1919 he went into business in the linen trade with his youngest son, James Jnr.
James Taylor’s published meeting records spanned over 50 years. Although this was a period of relative stability, there was controversy in assemblies in America and Canada in the early years. Conflict arose in 1920 over the question of assembly discipline; concerning the way in which individual congregations should deal with members who were in error or “sin” and would not change their ways.
Taylor taught that “ministry” from the Man of God (the worldwide leader) was of equal weight to the bible; an idea that was to have far-reaching implications in following generations. He held that the Holy Spirit could show new truth through the words of a spiritual man in the assembly. From 1942, he promoted the idea of giving recognition to the Holy Spirit in hymns and prayers. On his urging, hymns to the Holy Spirit were included in the 1951 revision of the Brethren’s Hymn Book.
Like Darby, Taylor travelled widely to Brethren assemblies in other countries and visited over 300 meeting groups during his lifetime. He died aged 84 in March 1953 and was buried in New York. His son, James Taylor Jnr officiated at his funeral.
James Taylor Jnr was to have a major influence on the Exclusive Brethren over a controversial 10 year period and beyond. At a conference in Central Hall, London, in 1959, a major confrontation developed between James Taylor Jnr and Gerald Cowell from England. Like Darby, Raven and Taylor Senior before him, Cowell maintained a moderate view of associations with “unbelievers”. However, at the conference, James Taylor Jnr advocated a new radical doctrine of separation from the world; from family, from friends, from work mates and from school mates not amongst the Brethren. A major schism developed and many families, particularly those with non-brethren relatives elsewhere, left the Brethren. Taylor was established as the worldwide leader and Cowell was “withdrawn from” (ex-communicated) less than a year later.
The Brethren had always shunned most forms of commercial entertainment but now a stricter regime applied. Movies, radios, TV, books and magazines, cinemas, dancing, bars and hotels, restaurants, holidays and parties were forbidden. Professional associations were not permitted nor was a university education, voting, keeping pets or celebrating Christmas. Eating and drinking with “non-brethren” was now expressly forbidden.
Over the next 10 years until his death in 1970, James Taylor Jnr issued a continual stream of “directives” that regulated the behaviour of the Brethren in exacting detail; prohibitions against women working, wearing slacks, using make-up or cutting their hair. Prohibitions relating to facial hair on men and rules about working on Saturday or Sunday, required attendance at meetings, bans on public swimming, life insurance and organised sport. The list of rules, compiled later on the internet, numbers in the hundreds.
Perhaps the most controversial event during James Taylor Junior’s leadership occurred at Aberdeen in Scotland in July 1970, in the last year of his life. Taylor led a three-day meeting at Aberdeen and stayed at the home of James Gardner. Over the period, other guests in the house noticed that the wife of one of the guests spent long periods alone in Taylor’s bedroom, apparently with her husband’s blessing.
Taylor led a meeting in the afternoon of Saturday 25 July 1970 where he appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. Audio tapes and a purported transcript of the meeting record Taylor slurring incoherently at times and using abusive and blasphemous language. After the meeting Taylor retired to Gardner’s home where according to other guests, the female house guest again joined Taylor in his room. James Gardner (with the assistance of Stanley McCallum) investigated, and as he claimed in his subsequent letter to the Brethren in New York, found Taylor in bed with the naked house guest. Confronted, Taylor abandoned the rest of the meeting and flew home to New York the following morning.
Taylor claimed that the incident was a test of support for his leadership and he labelled Gardner’s house and the Aberdeen assembly as “leprous”. Almost everybody associated with Aberdeen was ex-communicated. The scandal split the Brethren and many of those close to the event left the fellowship. Only two families in Aberdeen remained but assemblies further away, particularly those in Australian and New Zealand where defences could be marshalled, stayed largely intact.
James Taylor Jnr died less than three months later on 14 October 1970 at the age of 71. In the month following Taylor’s death Robert Stott, a trustee of Stow Hill Depot, the Brethren publishing house, privately published a comprehensive record of the Aberdeen meeting and the evidence of witnesses in a paper titled “If We Walk In the Light”. The paper was circulated throughout the Exclusive Brethren world but in the congregations that remained, mere possession of it became justification for immediate ex-communication.
After some jostling for leadership, “Big Jim” Symington, a pig farmer from Neche, North Dakota, emerged as the new “elect vessel”. Symington claimed to have been nominated as the new leader by Taylor in his last days. Symington’s leadership was marked by the ruthless ex-communication of rivals and further separations of members for infringing the rules. Children were separated from their parents, wives from husbands and families split. And the rules also became stricter. Common house walls and common sewer lines with “worldly” neighbours were banned, as were computers, mobile phones and fax machines. Symington reinforced the ban on university education and reduced the maximum age that Brethren children could attend high school to Year 10.
Jim Symington made one significant financial change during his tenure as the world leader. Often splits within the assembly resulted in the loss of church buildings and land if a majority of trustees left the Brethren. This caused an inconvenient loss of property. To prevent this, Symington arranged for all church trust deeds to be changed so that the world leader and his successors have a power of veto over any changes to the property trusts of Exclusive Brethren anywhere in the world.
Worn down by alcohol and in poor health, Symington died in 1987 at the age of 74. The focus of leadership in the Brethren then switched to Australia and New Zealand which had been least affected by the splits and upheavals of the Taylor and Symington years.
Attention moved to John Hales, an accountant from Sydney. However, John Hales and his charismatic brother W Bruce Hales had both been ex-communicated by James Taylor Jnr in 1965 for bringing a commercial system into the assembly. The “System” reached its zenith in the mid-1960′s when the Hales brothers were beginning to intervene in the financial affairs of ordinary Brethren members, to the extent of requiring full disclosure of their financial affairs and, in some areas, requiring that the Brethren fill out timesheets accounting for time spent each day. John Hales was ex-communicated three times; in 1965, 1976 and 1979. His brother, W Bruce Hales, who was married to James Taylor Junior’s daughter Consuelo, spent the 1970′s and 1980′s in exile.
The inconvenience of John Hales’ history was resolved quickly at a special meeting in October 1987 at which it was agreed that the facts presented which led to John Hales being withdrawn from were false and the assembly’s judgement was therefore wrong. Rehabilitated, John Hales was duly acknowledged as the new leader world-wide.
Finance and business became the dominant theme of John Hales’ leadership. Borrowing and lending between Brethren became more common which resulted in strong commercial ties between individuals (and thereby to the church). Hales also began to build high schools for Brethren children, the first of which was built in his own Sydney suburb in the early 1990′s.
John Hales died in January 2002 at the age of 79 and attention focused on his youngest son, Bruce D Hales, an accountant and successful businessman like his father. Bruce Hales attended a special three-day meeting of prominent Brethren in the UK in June 2002 which cemented his leadership. Of the seven times that leadership in the Brethren had changed, this became the second time where leadership had passed from father to son.
Two significant things have occurred so far under Bruce Hales’ leadership. The first, the “Review”, occurred in 2003 when many former members who had been withdrawn from over the previous 30-odd years were invited back into the assembly. In many cases, assemblies ruled that incorrect judgements had been made and apologies were offered. Internet sites used by ex-Brethren were abuzz with news of the contacts made and many “outs” took advantage of the amnesty to reunite, albeit briefly, with their long-lost families.
However, if internet messages are any guide, very few of those approached took advantage of the offer to rejoin. And it appears that often the overtures only served to open old wounds. Internet messages from the time attest to the bitterness of some of those approached; that families had been split apart irretrievably over matters where they were later judged to be innocent.
The second, more public move came in 2004 when the Brethren became politically active in support of conservative governments in the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. This changed a fundamental tenet of the Brethren, around since John Darby, that governments are chosen by God and that interference in the political process could frustrate God’s purpose. To a group that has historically shunned the limelight, this move also had the unwelcomed effect of attracting worldwide media attention to the Brethren; investigating every aspect of their lives, beliefs and behaviour. Current affairs shows on Australian television began to run regular “exposé’s” of the Brethren, often focused on their beliefs, their illusive leader, their “members only” meeting places and their schools.
Although no detailed public accounting exists, the Brethren are currently thought to number about 43,000 worldwide; with about 15,000 in Australia. Almost all growth comes from births as conversions into the faith are practically unheard of. Many, if not most Brethren school children are taught in Brethren schools from age 11 to 17 and when they leave school, young Brethren usually work in Brethren businesses.
Girls work in Brethren businesses until they marry. University education is not permitted. Because many Brethren children now spend most of their school years in Brethren schools and their working lives in Brethren businesses there is little opportunity for them to become exposed to the outside world. Financial transactions between Brethren create further binding obligations that deter “waverers” from leaving the fold. However, under Bruce Hales’ leadership, some of the more stringent rules have been relaxed and access to new technology such as mobile phones, digital cameras and fax machines is no longer banned. And, at the moment, ex-communication seems only to be used in the most blatant and intractable cases.
This history is based on the personal experience of the author, discussions with former members and a search of the very limited number of available documents about the Exclusive Brethren, (particularly those relating to contemporary events). Every effort has been made to present this history objectively.
Selected Bibliography
Bachelard, M (2008), Behind the Exclusive Brethren, Scribe, Melbourne.
Bruce D Hales (2007), Living Our Beliefs: the current way of life of the Exclusive Brethren
Hager, N (2006), The Hollow Men: a study in the politics of deception, Craig Potton Publishing.
Kuns, J and Rainbow, G (Editors), My Brethren – Bibliography – F E Raven (1873-1903)
Kuns, J and Rainbow, G (Editors), My Brethren – Bibliography – James Taylor (1870-1953)
London Conference (1959), at My Brethren
Quentin McDermott (2006), “Separate Lives”, Four Corners, ABC.
Quentin McDermott (2007), “The Brethren Express”, Four Corners, ABC.
Stott, R (2007), If We Walk in the Light. Personal paper by Robert Stott, at
The Aberdeen Incident, July 1970, at Peebs.Net
Turner, W G (1944), John Nelson Darby, C A Hammond, London.
James Taylor, Jr (1899-1970), at Wikipedia
www.peebs.net – (News, Forums, Guest Book, Resources)
www.theexclusivebrethren.com
A Short History of the Exclusive Brethren is reproduced with full permission from the author and David Tchappat.
Copies of David Tchappat’s Breakout may be ordered from the following resources:
Abbey’s Bookshop - http://www.abbeys.com.au/items.asp?id=237716
National Library of Australia - http://shop.nla.gov.au/product_info.php?products_id=11183
Planet Books - http://www.planetvideo.com.au/library/books/view/9781741108163/
For an even deeper insight into the Exclusive Brethren cult and how it operates, we recommend Michael Bachelard’s ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren’ which is available on Amazon and other online bookstores.














Thanks for giving me good information.braindumps
I ran into an article entitled “Edward Irving is Unnerving” on Joe Ortiz’ “Our Daily Bread” and would like to see anyone’s reaction to it. It gives the impression that Irving, rather than Darby, should be recognized at the “father of dispensationalism.” Trevor
I lost a wife and beautiful daughter to this mess, Why does God hold the blame for this confusion? Only time will tell…
canfieldmark@ymail.com
I’d have to say that even though I’m a bit upset about some things this so called history is written from a biased pint of view and a lot that’s written could be easily disputed, bitterness really plays with an individuals thinking and you can get to believing it yourself with time but it still doesn’t make you any happier, stop dragging yourselves down still further!
I refuse to fall for the crappy way you’ve chosen to go by criticising publicly everything you held dear but couldn’t live up too for no more honourable a reason than spite and envy, it’s your lives your destroying.
This organisation is undebateably a cult and all these leaders that are leading such are not born again men they are heritics and on their way to hell to ravage and distroy peoples lifes as these cults always do is an abomination before the lord gods word says in the book of revelation that he hates the deeds of the nicolaitans that is men like these filthy trash who conquer the lay people god will have the final say and all leaders in cults such as this have hot flames reserved for them in hell .
this is an exelent article on cults
Professor Mike
1. Absolute loyalty. Cults cannot operate unless there is unquestionable loyalty and allegiance to the sect’s doctrine, rules, and format. Enforcement of this rule can be through veiled threats or even actual physical punishment. The fear of eternal damnation is one of the strongest and effective tools used by the cult leader to demand 100% loyalty. Punitive actions are quickly administered to those who question or revolt against the leader’s doctrines or authority.
•Cults base their authority outside of acceptable Christian Tradition•Cults surpass any authority given to man from God.•Cult leaders claim special and unique authority given to them by God Himself. •Fear is one of the most powerful tools used by cults to control their members.Fear of earning the displeasure or wrath of the cult’s deity.
Fear of NOT being considered enlightened
Fear of living in error
Fear of not being found worthy of the standards of the cult
“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor 11:1-3)
2. Exclusivity. Being exclusive or unique is necessary to change the mindset of the initiate. Outsiders are often viewed as spiritually inferior at the least and enemies of the cult at the most. As in all secret organizations and societies, members view themselves as being “enlightened” and others as needing to be enlightened. This creates a self-righteous “we” versus “they” attitude which strengthens the hold of the cult.
3. Isolation from outside. Diminished perception of reality results when one is physically separated from friends, society, and the rational frame of reference in which one has previously functioned. Many cults will monitor outside influences closely.
Communal life is often advocated by cults
•It is easier to control the life of the members if they all live together in a compound or commune.•It is easier to prevent unwanted outside interference if members are in a compound-They control what literature is read
-They control whom they speak to
-If they speak to outsiders it is usually in teams
-If they speak to outsiders they are told to let the senior member speak until they have “grown” enough in the knowledge of the cult’s doctrines to be able to properly represent it.
•They control what media they are exposed to and to what length.-Most cults will represent all forms of media as tools of the devil
-They do not want the people to be influenced into thinking they need to leave or what they are doing is wrong.
-It is easier to perform unacceptable religious acts without interference.
-It is easier for the cult leader to live off of the labor of the members
4. Lack of privacy. Lack of privacy reduces the opportunity for reflective, critical thinking. In many cults members are seldom allowed alone time. This is especially true of initiates or “troubled” members.
5. Financial investment. All or part of one’s personal assets may be “donated” to the cult. The greater the investment in the cult, the less the chance of returning to a former vocation or lifestyle. With little or no financial resources available to the member, it’s harder to leave and make a new start.
6. Doctrinal confusion. Incomprehensive truths are more readily accepted when presented in a complex fashion that encourages rejection of logical thought.
•Cults may totally disregard the authority of the Holy Scriptures •Cults may also supplement infallible Biblical Doctrines with fallible manmade doctrines. •Some cults present other books as having equal or greater authority than the Bible.
•Cult leaders claim special and unique revelation.
7. Love. Love is a powerful feeling. Physical affection and constant contrived attention can give a false sense of brotherhood. This desensitizes the member’s defensive mechanism and makes control easier.
8. Assigned relationships. In many cults, the leader must assign or agree to all relationships within the cult. “Marriages” to another cult member (often assigned by the leader) lessens the chance of that member leaving the cult. It is easier for a single member to leave a cult than it is for one who has to convince their spouse to leave or for them to leave their spouse in the cult.
9. Newly defined family relationships. The family structure is redefined so as to fully integrate one fully into the new “family” at the expense of the physical family ties.
10. Behavior Modification: Behavior modification by alternating rewards and punishments lead to confusion, conformity, and co-dependency. This forms the initiate into the cult’s mold.
11. Peer pressure. By exploiting one’s desire for acceptance, doubts about cult practices are lessened. By offering a sense of belonging to an affirming community the member is more likely to accept the community’s system of beliefs and behaviors.
12. Conformity. Individuality is the enemy of cults. Individuality may promote rejection of false doctrine. Conformity in dress, language, interests, and assigned names, takes on a uniformity that erodes individuality.
13. Value rejection. As a recruit becomes more integrated into the cult, he is “encouraged” to denounce the values and beliefs of his former life. This is quickly filled with the cult’s values and beliefs.
14. Blind acceptance. Blind acceptance of all cult practices and beliefs are achieved by discouraging any questions or natural curiosity that may challenge what the leaders propagate.
15. Hypnotic states. When logic is bypassed, it is easier to accept the unacceptable. Through chanting, repetitious singing, or prolonged meditation hypnotic states can be induced which produces a highly susceptible state of mind.
16. Chanting and Meditation. Objective intellectual input is often switched off by countering anti-cult questions with repetitious songs and chants. This is mostly evident in New Age cults.
17. Sensory deprivation. Fatigue coupled with prolonged activity can make one vulnerable to otherwise offensive beliefs and suggestions.
18. Altered diet. Our diet can affect brain function. Many cults deprive the initiate of essential nutrients. Many times this is done by following a low protein diet. The end result is that the individual is easily disoriented and more susceptible to the cult’s control.
19. Paranoia. Fear is a powerful tool of cult leaders. Many leaders instill a fear of the actions of non-members that cause them to rebuff and reject all who are not closely related to the cult. In some cases those rejected were once close family and friends. Taken to its extreme, this can lead to paramilitary assaults and or suicides.
20. Eschatology. In most cults, there is an over emphasis placed on the study and preparation for eschatological events.
•Many “Last Day” cults state that they have a special or unique role to play in that particular generation.•Many see themselves as the primary agency by which God ushers in His Kingdom•By misinterpreting the Book of Revelation as well as other Eschatological books in the Bible, they can deceive their members into believing they have a crucial role in the last days that the Bible does not state.•Any over emphasis on end time events opens the door to error
Closing Thoughts
All cults have some or all of these characteristics operating. Sadly, some Christian pastors have begun to use some of these same techniques in an attempt to control their church members. They defend their actions by stating the ultimate goal is the spread of the Gospel and the growth of the local church body. The ends never justify utilizing ungodly means. Jesus told Peter, “I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. Jesus, the Author and the Finisher of our faith will build His Church using Biblically accepted means and not through the manipulative means of the world.
My father, Bruce Walker, was ex-communicated when he was 18 (1953) because he left.They only contacted him 40 years later to try and “save” him. I am trying to find more about my grandparents and other relatives because he passed away a few years ago. Do you know any names of the Walker members? My grandparents names are Arthur and Dorothy Walker.
Hi Rachel!!
Five months later, my husband stumbled upon your request. I happen to be one of the N.Y. Walker clan, and your grandfather is my uncle. He was (is) the youngest of their family of five, my dad was the oldest, by 15 yrs. If this reaches you and you haven’t given up watching for a reply here, let me know and I’d be more than happy to fill you in as I know your family well. We are no longer with that sect we were born into and it would take a while to tell our story and why we were put “out”. I’m so sorry for you for the loss of your father.
Looking forward to hearing from you! (I’ve lived in Ontario all my married yrs.)
Love, Joyce Lewis