John Nelson Darby
Although not published until 1864, this collection of letters between Rev. Kelly and J.N. Darby commences in 1839 and the views of Darby are therefore significant in the light of his later actions and attitudes.
Topics covered include Darby’s own feelings regarding the Roman church as well as the C of E.
Darby outlines his belief in the importance of having one (Darby-approved) church in a town – an aspect of the Exclusive Brethren that remains to this day.
Darby used this principle notably in the English town of Plymouth, from where the Plymouth Brethren gained their name. Following a doctrinal dispute with an old friend, Darby forced a split in the Plymouth congregation by setting up a second communion table. This action precipitated a chain of events that led to the entire Plymouth Brethren being ripped apart during the mid 1840′s … an event known as the Bethesda Division.
Continue reading »
AN Groves & JN Darby
This is a facsimile of an 1836 letter written to John Nelson Darby (JND) by the man who many credit as being the originator of the movement that became known as the Plymouth Brethren: A. N. Groves.
The letter indicates clearly that Anthony Norris Groves (ANG) was concerned by signs of sectarianism and rigidity in Darby’s teachings and he gently remonstrates with his old Trinity friend before returning as a missionary to India. Unfortunately, history proves that Darby ignored the warnings.
The Exclusive Brethren today treat Darby’s theory and interpretation of ‘Separation from evil’ as their foundational principle. It has led to heartache, ripped-apart families, suicide and even murder.
It is not often that a historical document such as this one can point so clearly to a moment when a future cult could have been avoided.
Continue reading »
Bible & Gospel Trust - April 2010
The latest insight into the Exclusive Brethren comes from a document submitted to the UK Charity Commissioner just a few weeks ago. The Bible & Gospel Trust’s Summary Information Return (2009) has some remarkable details and a rather embarrassing typo for a printing company.
To begin with, what is the Bible & Gospel Trust?
If the Exclusive Brethren had a soul, perhaps a debatable concept, then it would reside at Chelwood House, Cox Lane, Chessington, Surrey, UK. This is the address of the printing and printed material distribution center for the Exclusive Brethren. The primary function since its birth, in the years following the 1970 death of James Taylor Jr, is to publish the words spoken by its recognized leaders, sometimes with embarrassing accuracy.
Very similar to the Watchtower relationship with Jehovah Witnesses, the Bible & Gospel Trust has an assured market within the Exclusive Brethren cult. Exclusive Brethren must purchase ‘ministry’, hymn books and bibles from this single source. As an EB teenager begins to earn money, the local EB Assembly ‘BGT Agent’ will approach the young person and let them know that they are expected to purchase the collected writings of all EB leaders, right back to J. N Darby and the mid 1800′s. It’s quite an investment – and the purchase is mandatory.
Continue reading »
We have been contacted by several media and other interested parties who are a little confused by the current row in Australia over a Christian Brethren decision not to allow a self-help gay/lesbian group to use a church-run summer camp facility.
A gay youth support group trying to meet to talk about homophobia has had its booking at a Phillip Island camp ground blocked because the resort owners, the Christian Brethren church, deplore their lifestyle.
The confusion stems from a perceived relationship between the Christian Brethren and the Exclusive Brethren.
The Christian Brethren church is historically linked to the infamous Exclusive Brethren, but broke away in the mid-1800s.
The Exclusive Brethren – a spiral into decay
Two news items from different sides of the world today, highlight the Exclusive Brethren. An almost throw-away comment in New Zealand Parliament a few days ago and a commentary in UK’s The Observer.
New Zealand Parliament
Questions And Answers – Thursday, 31 July 2008Extract
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister has been assured by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that he has committed no illegality, and the member has yet to demonstrate anything to the reverse.
Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister see any similarity between the advertising campaign paid for by leading bloodstock breeder Patrick Hogan, overtly supporting New Zealand First during the 2005 election campaign, and the covert campaign run by the Exclusive Brethren Church in that year, and does she have any concerns about the connection between that campaign and the fact that Mr Winston Peters subsequently became the Minister for Racing?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it would be absolutely apparent to everybody that there was no covert campaign on behalf of the racing industry in 2005. There was a very overt campaign; it was overtly against the Labour Party at that time, including signs on horses at racetracks. The Exclusive Brethren, however, decided to follow a biblical injunction, and hide their lights well under any large number of bushels.
New Zealand Parliament Questions And Answers – Thursday, 31 July 2008
A cast-iron case for a secular society
The Observer,
by Nick Cohen
Sunday August 3 2008Extract
So imbued with discriminatory thinking have politicians and judges become that they are shocked when citizens ask for equality before the law. When the hapless Ed Balls was at the Treasury, the Plymouth Brethren told him that they and their more fundamentalist offshoot – the Exclusive Brethren – were the victims of religious prejudice at the hands of that unlikely source of bigotry, the tax authorities.
Both sects believed that God decides when you died. To their members, compliance with the state’s requirement to take out an annuity at 75 forced them to second-guess God by blasphemously betting on the date of their deaths.
The obliging Balls created an alternative pension scheme and then spluttered when pensioners of all faiths and none saw his generous loophole and shifted large sums of money through it. He seemed to think he could legislate for one group without the law applying equally to everyone.
If he did not have the strength of principle to stand up for equality, he ought to have had the wit to realise that the Plymouth Brethren may not have been as devout as they appeared. If you sincerely believe that an omnipotent God controls every aspect of your life, you place your fate in his hands. You do not ask accountants to lobby ministers for tax-efficient changes to pension law.
The UK press is starting to improve both their history and their accuracy regarding the Exclusive Brethren. Their confusion is understandable of course. The UK has known of the Plymouth Brethren since inception in the late 1820′s, or rather when they started to gather together in greater numbers during the 1830′s. The Exclusive Brethren offshoot commenced in the late 1840′s when J.N. Darby was instrumental in forcing a division.
To call the Exclusive Brethren ‘Plymouth’ is a genus/species error that insults the far larger and evangelically successful Plymouth Brethren. Indeed, many Plymouth Brethren websites carry a ‘We are not Exclusive Brethren’ disclaimer!
Continue reading »
May 28, 2008
So David was ‘evicted’ from the Big Brother house because he was “boring”. What some people do not understand is that it can take years to recover from the damage caused from the trauma of being locked away from society. A typical ex-member of the Exclusive Brethren has been surrounded by rules and restrictions since birth. The ability to hold a ‘normal’ conversation with someone not part of the cult is a skill that has to be learned.
Certainly David Tchappat has had 13 or more years to learn how to socially interact, but his chosen routes of employment are telling – a policeman and currently a fireman. Both roles allow physical communication and an associated authority. Try and pick two other jobs (necessarily attainable without a university education) that depend more on rules and regulations as much as these … ex-Exclusive Brethren are expert at maintaining existence around rules. For the first few years, an ex-member without some form of structure is the psychological equivalent of a body without a skeleton.
Continue reading »
A doctrinal analysis of Exclusive Brethren ‘Separation’
Criticizing the doctrinal origins of the Exclusive Brethren can be a dangerous ambition. The history and objectives of this strange seclusionist cult are intentionally steeped in the mists of tradition, conscience and the horror of even suggesting that any existing, or former, ‘Man of God’ (one of the internal titles given to Exclusive Brethren leaders) could possibly do something wrong! Today, the very concept of criticism is in the process of being carefully bred-out of the group. One of the irrefutable symptoms of being a cult is this intolerance toward internal questioning and criticism.
The following December 2009 blog entry presents in a refreshingly clear and concise manner exactly what is wrong with the Exclusive Brethren interpretation of what it is to be ‘separate from the world’. The author Milt Rodriguez (never an Exclusive Brethren member) also portrays a perfect summary of why Brethren divide so many times – how many ex-Exclusive Brethren have heard the dread words: ‘I can no longer walk in fellowship with you… I therefore withdraw from iniquity‘ …
The Dominion of Opinion that follows is recommended as one of the better doctrinal explanations of where the Exclusive Brethren went wrong with their malformed hypothesis of what ‘Separation from Evil’ really entails.
Continue reading »