A Personal Response to ‘Into the Light’

On July 24, 2009, in Background, Commentary, by Peebs.Net   Share

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.

Continue reading »

0 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • • • • •  

‘Into the Light’ – whitewashing the Exclusive Brethren

On July 23, 2009, in Background, Commentary, by Peebs.Net   Share
Jackson Wells seem proud of their unusual client – quite probably the only ‘christian church’ to ever publish a web site where the only means of contact is the telephone number of their expensive public relations guru. For those who were brought up in or know the Exclusive Brethren cult, ‘Into the Light: understanding the Exclusive Brethren’ by Ben Haslem is easily recognized as an almost outrageous example of whitewash. However, the principle of spin-doctoring has a purpose – it is designed to seed the possibility of doubt.
Today we reproduce the Jackson Wells paper. Tomorrow we publish a letter to Jackson Wells written by an ex-member of the cult – a letter that has remained understandably unanswered.
Into the Light: understanding the Exclusive Brethren
by Benjamin Haslem
Jackson Wells
April 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
It is fair to say that the Brethrens 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.
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.
Ben Haslem
Jackson Wells
Source: http://jacksonwells.com.au/Into-the-Light-understanding-the-Exclusive-Brethren.ashx
Further information:
Peebs.Net Forum – ‘Jackson Wells – In the dark over the Exclusive Brethren’
http://peebs.net/Community/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=4061
Jackson Wells – website
http://jacksonwells.com.au
Jackson Wells – Other Clients
http://jacksonwells.com.au/Clients.aspx
Jackson Wells – Into the Light: understanding the Exclusive Brethren
http://jacksonwells.com.au/Into-the-Light-understanding-the-Exclusive-Brethren.ashx
Exclusive Brethren – www.thexclusivebrethren.com

As an example of the Spin Doctor’s art, the following paper recently produced by Jackson Wells (the Exclusive Brethren Public Relations firm) is textbook quality. There are many other examples of ‘lipstick on the pig‘ publicly available, ranging from ‘Living Our Beliefs’ (purportedly) by Bruce D. Hales, to virtually every Planning Application that the Exclusive Brethren submit for their fortress-style Meeting Rooms and very private schools.

Jackson Wells seem proud of their unusual client – quite probably the only ‘christian church’ to have published a web site where the only means of contact is the telephone number of their expensive public relations firm! For those who were brought up in or know the truth regarding the Exclusive Brethren cult, ‘Into the Light: understanding the Exclusive Brethren‘ by Jackson Well’s Ben Haslem is easily recognized as an outrageous example of whitewash. However, the principle of spin-doctoring has a purpose – it is designed to seed the possibility of doubt.

Today we reproduce the Jackson Wells paper. Tomorrow, we publish a letter to Jackson Wells written by an ex-member of the cult – a letter that has remained understandably unanswered.

Into the Light: understanding the Exclusive Brethren

by Benjamin Haslem

Jackson Wells

April 2009

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.

Continue reading »

1 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • • • •  

Exclusive Brethren Instructions to the Family Court – 2005

On June 29, 2009, in Background, Commentary, News, by Peebs.Net   Share

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.

Continue reading »

1 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • •  

Exclusive Brethren in Australia lose workplace exemption

On March 19, 2009, in Business, News, by Peebs.Net   Share

The Exclusive Brethren in Australia are perhaps beginning to feel the impact of the Bruce Hales strategy of forcing the cult into the public political awareness over the past few years.  Although now remaining silent behind their expensive PR firm (Jackson-Wells) for the last few months, the EB must now realize the impact of their disasterous foray into politics:

People in glass houses should most certainly avoid throwing stones!

Exclusive Brethren lose workplace exemption

The Age, Australia

by Misha Schubert, Canberra

March 19, 2009

A special exemption used by the secretive Exclusive Brethren sect to ban unions from their workplaces was struck out of workplace laws before the Senate last night.

Continue reading »

0 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • •  

What do you do when your old friends won’t come out to play?

On January 22, 2009, in Commentary, News, by Peebs.Net   Share

Ever since the message eventually sunk home with Bruce Hales – that whatever he is as leader of the Exclusive Brethren, he is not exactly expert in matters political – governments and political circles have mostly breathed a sign of relief.  

Not so Australia’s Peter Costello who has seemingly missed his old wealthy friends so much, he was forced to go find a replacement!

Costello continues to catch the fire

22 January 2009

by Bernard Keane

Canberra correspondent

 

Peter Costello will continue his long association with the extreme Christian group Catch the Fire ministries on Australia Day, when the group holds a “prayer celebration” at Melbourne Town Hall.

Continue reading »

0 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • •  

Is Australia a ‘breeding ground’ for cults?

On January 9, 2009, in Commentary, News, by Peebs.Net   Share

Question:

What do the ‘Brisbane Christian Fellowship’ and ‘The Exclusive Brethren Christian Fellowship’ have in common?

Possible Answers:

1 – They both have ‘Christian Fellowship’ in their preferred title?

2 – They both break up families?

3 – Their leaders both live in Australia?

4 – There are reports of sexual abuse in both organizations?

5 – Both are accused of spiritual and emotional abuse?

6 – Both are sparking demands for a full government level investigation?

7 – Investigative reporters have just published compelling books on both?

8 – They give Christianity a bad name?

9 – All of the above?

Continue reading »

2 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • • • • •  

Exclusive Brethren’s network of separatist schools continues to grow

On December 16, 2008, in News, by Peebs.Net   Share

 

Leeton Shire mayor Paul Maytom (right) unveils the official plaque to declare the Leeton MET campus open with school chief executive officer Laurie Pagden (left) and campus co-ordinator Barry Le Cornu.The Exclusive Brethren’s network of separatist schools continues to grow despite signs of a long-awaited community backlash.  As the public begin to realize just how little the Exclusive Brethren truly care about the communities they decide to move into, and just how far they are prepared to go to get what they want, there is normally a reaction.

Kids are kids and school are just schools … in almost every other situation.  In the case of the Exclusive Brethren, they are determined to have their own schools for one reason – they do not want their children ‘contaminated’ by the outside world.  They view contact with ‘worldlies’ (that’s you and me) to be in breach of their base doctrine of Separation.  This pervasive doctrine was taught by the founder of the Exclusive Brethren, John Nelson Darby.

The Exclusive Brethren should not be confused with the Plymouth Brethren – although they share the same roots, the Exclusives have shunned the world and maintained strict separatist walls since the mid 1800′s.  A visual review of a typical Exclusive Brethren Meeting Room says it all – high security fences, padlocked gates, no windows and absolutely no ‘All are Welcome’ signs at their entrances.

They do not evangelize or prosetelyze – all growth is from within.  This growth is fiercely protected – hence their huge and ambitious shool systems.  By careful planning and brilliant manouvering and lobbying, the Exclusive Brethren have so far managed to receive $Hundreds of Millions in tax concessions for both their schools and their fortress-style Meeting Rooms.  

Does it not seem extraordinary that the average Tax-Payer is being allowed to finance the continuance of a cult?

Continue reading »

2 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • • •  

Bob Brown concludes initial statements on Exclusive Brethren in Australian Parliament

On August 27, 2008, in Background, News, by Peebs.Net   Share

August 27th, 2008

COMMITTEES

Community Affairs Committee Reference Debate
resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Bob Brown:

That the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 26 November 2008:

(a) exemptions for the Exclusive Brethren and its members from Australian laws or administrative decisions;

(b) public funding, tax or other arrangements which do or may advantage the Exclusive Brethren over other community organisations;

(c) the activities of the Exclusive Brethren or its members which threaten or harm families, in particular, the best interests of children;

(d) the covert, as against overt, activities of the Exclusive Brethren or its members in the political process in Australia; and (e) any related matters.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (6.14 pm)

—I rise in continuance of the debate on Senator Brown’s motion. Last night, in beginning my remarks, I was commenting on the fact that when I was teaching on the northwest coast of Tasmania many years ago I had a very bright and capable young woman in my class who was not allowed to go on to further education because the Exclusive Brethren prohibited it. They prohibit their young people from being able to go to university at all. As a former Meadowbank school principal, David Stewart, an Exclusive Brethren principal said:

We do not go in for higher learning. We gave up universities in the 1960s as the hotbed of atheism. They prove that everything is nothing to their own satisfaction. We have suffered no loss to our knowledge. We particularly recoil from novels and cinemas.

Continue reading »

1 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • •  

Bob Brown again raises Exclusive Brethren in Australian Parliament

On August 26, 2008, in Background, News, by Peebs.Net   Share

August 26, 2008

From Australian Hansard for proceedings Tuesday, August 26th, 2008

COMMITTEES

Community Affairs Committee Reference

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (5.47 pm) —
I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 26 November 2008:

(a) exemptions for the Exclusive Brethren and its members from Australian laws or administrative decisions;

(b) public funding, tax or other arrangements which do or may advantage the Exclusive Brethren over other community organisations;

(c) the activities of the Exclusive Brethren or its members which threaten or harm families, in particular, the best interests of children;

(d) the covert, as against overt, activities of the Exclusive Brethren or its members in the political process in Australia; and (e) any related matters.

There has been a great deal of public disquiet about the Exclusive Brethren sect, which now Prime Minister Rudd as shadow foreign affairs minister commented upon back in September 2006 when he called for a review of federal funding of Exclusive Brethren schools.

Continue reading »

1 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • •  
Page 2 of 212