Brian Baxter *

April 2005

Book-length memoirs by ex-members of the secretive Exclusive Brethren (EB - sometimes known as the Plymouth Brethren) sect are few and far between. I was once shown such a book by my wife’s grandfather, himself a former EB member. That book, cataloguing the stories of several people, was privately printed in a limited edition. New Zealander Ngaire (pronounced Nyree) Thomas’s Behind Closed Doors (2004) is more freely available and seems from the comments on her website to have attracted a much wider readership.

If ever there was a weird mob, the EBs are it! Founded in the nineteenth century, this small Protestant grouping - around 45,000 worldwide, 9,000 in Australia - has turned the principle of ’separation from evil’ into an art form. Several biblical passages (especially 2 Tim 2:19-22) urge believers to have nothing to do with ‘impurity’ and ‘iniquity’ and EBs take this injunction to its limit. Several restrictions are listed and discussed in Thomas’s book, but among other things an EB must not eat or drink with non-Brethren, belong to a trade union or professional association, talk with a person who has been expelled from the EB ‘fellowship’, live in the same building as a person who is not in fellowship (semi-detached residences are also unacceptable), share a driveway with their neighbour, watch television, movies or video, listen to a radio, go to places of public entertainment, own or operate a computer, own a mobile phone (this is because Satan is ‘lord of the air’), or own a pet (pets are regarded as idols, rather than as mere bosses).

EB children must not visit non-Brethren homes. Tertiary education is not permitted and young people must not leave home except to get married. Dating is not permitted at all. Women must not cut their hair but must wear a small bow as a token of their submission to men. In addition, women must not wear slacks or jeans but should wear clothing that is ‘comely’ though not ‘conspicuous’. Men must keep their hair short and are not permitted beards or moustaches. They must remove their watches while attending EB meetings, although women may keep theirs on. There are no mirrors in meeting hall washrooms as they ‘encourage vanity’. Red is regarded as a ‘worldly colour’ and is generally avoided. (Thomas op cit, passim; ‘Plymouth Brethren: Exclusive Raven/Taylor Sect’ - http://www.cloudnet.com/~dwyman/anonymous1.html - accessed 9/08/2002)

Astonishingly, EBs actively encourage the consumption of alcohol, especially whisky. This counter-intuitive rule is referred to several times in Thomas’s book, and was one of the reasons my wife’s grandparents left the sect in the early 1960s. I recall being told of a young EB wife returning home to find her husband sharing a Scotch with their four year-old, though I don’t know whether official instructions went quite that far; the marriage immediately disintegrated. The Brethren are led by an individual known as the ‘Man of God’ (MOG) or ‘Elect Vessel’, and one of these, James Taylor Jr. (MOG 1959-70), had a well-developed taste for whisky. EBs were told that alcohol relaxed inhibitions and that they should drink it and offer it to guests in order to show that they had ‘nothing to hide’.

The ‘Aberdeen Ambush’

In the later stages of his term as MOG, Taylor’s behaviour became erratic. At a gathering in Aberdeen in 1970 he began to call people ‘bums’ and other offensive names during services. (A transcript and audiotape of his performance is available at www.peebs.net - ‘Peeling the onion’.) At this time Taylor was also found in bed with a married EB woman. These episodes caused a major split in Brethren ranks, some arguing that Taylor’s behaviour was immoral, while others accepted the official explanation that their leader had merely been testing the faith of his followers. (Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Brethren)

Arguing that ‘unconfessed sin remains unforgiven’, EBs require members to both acknowledge and describe their sins to other Brethren. Public confessions in front of assemblies may also be demanded (one such occasion is outlined below). This practice is a strong indication that EBs are a cult, although this particular question is not examined here.

EBs generally hold themselves aloof from politics and do not vote. However, in 2004 the sect held prayer meetings and donated money for the re-election of President George W. Bush. Wikipedia notes that ‘in this they are aligned with America’s “Religious Right”‘. (The Brethren are, of course, opposed to evolution.) By getting the EBs on side, Republican organisers seem to have squeezed the last drop out of the ultra-conservative Christian constituency. There is certainly a lot of upside for the Democrats if they can produce a candidate even slightly more acceptable to the Christian Right than John Kerry. Hillary Rodham Clinton already seems to have recognised this. (Melbourne Age, 27 Jan. 2005)

Are the EBs what most people would call ‘true Christians’? Ngaire Thomas was a member of the EB from her birth in 1943 until 1974 and has kept in touch with developments in the sect since that time. Here I would like to recount three stories she tells in her book.

Ngaire’s ambition

I was fifteen when I knew that one day I wanted to be a schoolteacher. Dad said this would be out of the question. My school friends were going on to university, but I knew that, for us Exclusives, higher education was now forbidden.

The MOG had recently changed the rules so that Brethren could no longer study to become doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers or any other profession requiring a higher education. Members who already had degrees were expected to renounce them (how this is done I’m not entirely sure.)

‘But Dad, I want to go to university, I want to be a teacher’, I wailed when he told me of the new edict. ‘Universities are dens of iniquity and the Man of God has seen fit to prohibit our young people from entering them. You will be leaving school at the end of the week’, was his answer.

Ngaire protested, a rather dangerous tactic against a father who was inclined to belt her whenever she displayed signs of ‘independence’, a quality condemned in all EBs and especially in females.

‘Dad, I am not going to leave school, I don’t care about the Exclusive Brethren and their stupid rules …’ ‘Ngaire, your insolent behaviour makes your mother and me very sad’ he said, turning on his ‘poor me, hang-dog’ look … ‘I have arranged an interview for you at the Commercial Bank next Monday. There is no more to be said about it.’ (75-6)

Ngaire’s teachers tried to persuade her father to change his mind. This only made things worse, but the story has something of a happy ending, as Ngaire realised that a small income would increase her independence from her family, and later in life even managed to spend some years teaching at a school. (235)

Shamed before the Assembly

I was one who had the unfortunate experience of being brought before the members of the Brethren to be ‘dealt with’ at a [so-called 'Care' meeting] myself, when I was only about fifteen. It was certainly a terrifying and horrific experience.

One day, a leading Brother from another town visited Ngaire’s home and a few minutes later her father summoned her to the loungeroom. The visitor began to question her about her relationship with a male cousin. Not seeing any particular harm in it, Ngaire confessed to the two men that she and her cousin had occasionally ‘experimented with kissing’.

‘So, are you admitting that you have committed fornication with a young man?’, asked Dad. ‘Well, yes, I suppose I must have’, I answered, nodding my head, not knowing what he meant by ‘committing fornication’ … ‘I told you so, and she’s not even ashamed of it’, said the visiting Brother in a smug, self-satisfied voice. ‘This is a matter that should be dealt with by the Assembly in Auckland.’

Sex education in EB homes being close to non-existent, it took some time for Ngaire to discover what fornication actually entailed. In the meantime, her family gave her the silent treatment.

As my matter was now under Assembly investigation, no one wanted to talk to me, not even my mother, and everyone in the family knew I had been unspeakably wicked.

When the night of what she terms her ‘humiliation’ arrived, an elderly Brother who had discussed the matter with Ngaire and understood the situation, defended her in front of the large meeting:

… [H]e believed I was still a virgin, that I had not committed fornication, and in fact I was somewhat ignorant of the meaning of the word.

Rather than let the matter drop, the Brethren decided to take things further.

Some Brothers were sure that I must be guilty of something, so they went ahead and read Deut. 22:24, a verse in the Old Testament about ‘not crying out’ … I think they meant that I should have cried out and said ‘No’ when my cousin had wanted to kiss me.

Here comes the kicker:

I was given the microphone and told to say I was sorry for not crying out. I stood up in front of about five or six hundred people … The sea of stern and solemn faces was just a blur in front of me as I apologised for something I didn’t do. When I had said I was sorry and had been graciously forgiven by the Brethren, I sat down in my seat and cried with humiliation and shame.

And here comes the super-kicker:

Although it was a very traumatic experience, something good came out of it. At fifteen, although still rather ignorant of some things, I was old enough to know that if it was wrong for my cousin to hug and kiss me, then what my father was doing to me was very, very wrong indeed … I threatened my father that I would ‘cry out’ and cause a public scandal … if he did not stop his inappropriate behaviour … The abuse ended there and then; he was careful never to touch me again. (79-85)

Apart from the alcohol issue, another reason that my wife’s grandparents left the EB was because of stories they heard at the public confession meetings. I can still remember Grandpa shaking his head slowly and saying in his beautiful Welsh accent, ‘Brian, some of them could’ve gone to jail for twenty years for the things they done.’ My wife later told me that he was specifically referring to admissions of incest.

The contraception issue

Abstinence was not [my husband Denis's] strong point. We found it very hard to practise ‘Vatican Roulette’, the only form of birth control allowed by the Exclusive Brethren. (142)

After the birth of her fourth child, and in the wake of a serious health problem, Ngaire began taking the contraceptive pill. She kept this fact a secret from Denis. After a few years, the Brethren elders (known as ‘priests’) became suspicious. One night, two priests invited themselves around to discuss another woman’s confession that she once gave Ngaire some contraceptive advice, ’something about digging in the garden at the right time of the month’. As you read this, keep reminding yourself that this happened in New Zealand in 1974, and not in Calvin’s Geneva.

‘Denis’, said one of the priests, ‘we are very concerned. Ben is four and a half and Ngaire is not pregnant again yet. What are you doing to prevent it? … Have you been digging in the garden at certain times of the month, Ngaire?’ … ‘No’, I answered truthfully. ‘The garden is Denis’s responsibility. I’m far too busy with the children.’ ‘Denis, we suspect that Ngaire is doing something to prevent another pregnancy. We are reminding you that you are responsible [for dealing] with this matter.’

After the priests left, Ngaire told Denis about the contraceptives. He asked her to stop taking them but she procrastinated. The priestly visits continued and before long the family was ’shut up’. As Ngaire explains:

If the priests are suspicious of some sort of unconfessed and unforsaken sin, then they would visit that person to take a closer look. If the sinner is unrepentant, or appears to be hiding something, then that person is declared a ‘leper’. Because leprosy is contagious, the whole house is ’shut up’ so as not to risk contaminating the rest of the congregation. (156-8)

Essentially, being ’shut up’ meant that the family could not attend any EB meetings (normally held daily), nor could they make contact with other EB members. As they were not allowed to maintain friendships with non-Brethren this amounted to complete isolation.

After a week, Ngaire confessed her ’sin’ to the priests and the family was ‘restored to fellowship’. Throwing her pill supplies out, she became pregnant again almost immediately, to her doctor’s alarm. A short time later, the family found itself ’shut up’ again over a different matter. The priests recommenced their visits and this time their insistent probing yielded a far-reaching result.

When [we were being] questioned on the subject of intimacy, Denis confessed to being sexually adventurous at times - within the marriage, of course. We both believed that whatever went on between the sheets, in the privacy of our own locked bedroom, was our own business, but they didn’t think so … We weren’t doing anything drastically wrong, but the priests declared otherwise. One of them said, ‘We always knew there was something wrong with you Denis, we just didn’t know what it was, and now we know’ …

The priests then informed the pair of a new EB rule: ‘no sex allowed for couples while shut up’. Denis and Ngaire failed to abide by this condition:

When the priests came to see us the next week, they didn’t stay long. Only long enough to ask the dreaded question. ‘Did you …?’, began one of the priests. ‘No’, said Denis, ‘No, we didn’t.’ Denis had told a lie and I was astounded. I had never known Denis to tell a lie … (180-1)

Ngaire became so angry that she left the house and tried unsuccessfully to push the priests’ parked car down a hill. Denis, however, had an attack of conscience and phoned one of the priests the next day to confess the lie. On the same evening, he received a call to say that the Brethren could no longer ‘walk with’ either him or Ngaire ie. they were expelled from the sect, Denis for lying and Ngaire for being ‘contentious and rebellious’. (182) However, priests continued to visit Denis regularly for the next twenty years, trying to secure his submissive return to the fold. (When some elders tried this with my wife’s grandparents, my father-in-law turned the hose on them.)

What does the term ‘Christian’ mean today?

Since the [James Taylor Jr.] era the extent of religious belief of EB members has declined. Membership is now a birthright, with almost no religious conviction required. (Wikipedia op cit.)

Ngaire Thomas is a rather good example of this phenomenon. She did not ‘invite the Lord Jesus into her heart’ until some years after she had left the EBs (at which time she began to move between denominations, with a leaning towards experiential-charismatic ones; this is a common pattern among former sect members.) She led the first 30 years of her life immersed in Brethren doctrine and embalmed in the lifestyle, and yet she dismisses their theology with barely a qualm:

For some reason it just didn’t happen for me. I found their whole concept of Christianity confusing and irrelevant … How could I possibly teach my children about the Exclusive Brethren belief system when I knew so little about it myself, and cared even less? (140, 142-3)

Nonetheless, Ngaire spends some time considering the question of whether or not EBs are ‘Christian’, and essentially answers in the affirmative:

I don’t want to be unfair to them. As individuals most of them are good, obedient but simple-minded people, and genuinely believe they are doing God’s will … In spite of public opinion and media reports, it would be fair comment that generally they live a type of high quality Christian life … (19). They zealously strive to be worthy Christians, according to their restricted understanding of the Bible. (177-8)

Humphreys and Ward, authors of Religious Bodies in Australia and rock-solid Calvinists, raise a query about whether the EBs are wholeheartedly Trinitarian, but have no problem in classifying them as Christian. Indeed, I doubt if any taxonomist of religion would classify them as non-Christian, except for other isolationist sects who regard everyone but themselves as non-Christian.

But the taxonomists tend to make their classifications on the basis of stated belief. If your denomination, sect or cult calls itself ‘Christian’, claims to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and particularly if it accepts that he became the saviour of all mankind through his substitutionary death on the cross, your church or other grouping will be listed in texts as ‘Christian’.

However, the secondary, colloquial meaning of ‘Christian’ concerns itself with actions and attitudes rather than stated beliefs. The OED defines a Christian as a person who ’shows the qualities associated with Christ’s teaching’, and even more precisely, as a person who is ‘fair, kind and decent’. In recent times, this popular understanding of the term ‘Christian’ has been thoroughly subverted by extremist sects and religiously-based political organisations. People describing themselves as ‘Christians’ now invite a degree of suspicion. With certain honourable exceptions, ‘fair, kind and decent’ Christians have been replaced in the public eye by rancorous, vindictive and theocratic ones.

On this basis, EBs are not ‘old-fashioned Christians’ at all. People who can be so cruel to vulnerable members of their own community deserve to be called a lot of things. But ‘Christian’ is not one of them.

(Ngaire Thomas’s book is obtainable from www.behind-closed-doors.org or from CCG Ministries 50 Carcoola St., Nollamara, WA 6061)

(This article was originally published in The Skeptic Autumn 2005 (Vol. 25, No. 1).
Republished with permission.)