One by one, I tick off the subjects and controversies that a person who has differences with the brethren is expected to have opinions on.
As so often with these much-covered areas, I don't have much to say. Nineteen-seventy is a long time ago for me and those of my age, and our thoughts are shaped by the historical nature of the events, not by remembered strength of feeling.
And, as such, we tend not to care very much about this one, any more than we do about the doctrinal divisions around the turn of the last century.
Personally, I have heard both sides of the story of James Taylor Junior and the outrageous behaviour in Aberdeen, Scotland. The fact that there is no middle ground, and that the facts vary so wildly before even starting on the interpretation, makes me shrug and accept that I will never know what actually happened. I genuinely have no opinion whatsoever on it. I have heard recordings of the man around that time, and didn't much like what I heard, but that's all. It seems kind of unlikely that the whole thing was an elaborate charade, but who am I to say it wasn't? I don't care enough to get into the argument.
For the brethren, a majority of whom are probably too young to remember the events, their stance on the matter is justified by history since. Without, as I say, any particular strength of feeling, those of my age group simply assume the best possible interpretation of the events, and many are keen to hear stories of those exciting times. Any hint of a question is met with the unanswerable observation that the only collective position that has thrived is the one that stuck by the man whose morality is being queried. For brethren, with their sense of destiny and knowledge of God's care of them above all others on Earth, that is quite sufficient retrospective justification for whatever went on, being a signal of divine approval.
It's a bit like history being written by the victors. As the brethren are the assembly, they are entitled to say what the facts are, even about the past.
11 comments:
Do the Brethren consider that J N Darby would have been content to be an uncritical presence at the Aberdeen meeting in July 1970, and do they feel he would have been a placid guest in the house where his successor, James Taylor Jnr, was staying that weekend?
The recording and the transcript of the meeting which was part of this event are undeniably authentic. I personally find it sickening, from both Christian and non-Christian perspectives. The lame justification for it as an "ambush" puts in the category of Chairman Mao's tactics in the 1950s.
If nothing else, it discredits the "unbroken line" of leadership. To either overlook, be indifferent to, or deny this evidence which speaks for itself, places the Brethren squarely in the category of "cult".
"I genuinely have no opinion whatsoever on it ... I don't care enough to get into the argument."
I can understand this, but if your sister told you the way that JTJr fondled (pawed) her - and the other women who were there - in front of her husband and all the others who were in the house at Aberdeen, you might feel a little different.
My late sister was one of those women. The son of the houseowner (who was obviously there too) has confirmed this.
I realised this would be controversial, but I'm honest that I can't summon up more than a shrug. I have heard from people who were there in person, with widely differing views of what went on, and from their stories I can barely recognise the same event. Both sides have incontrovertible facts that they consider totally prove their point. And at a distance of thirty-seven years, I can't distinguish.
The whole thing is such a tangled mass of accusation and recrimination in all directions that every time I try to consider it I shy away again. I hate to approach the subject, I really do, as I find dealing with strong emotions very difficult.
My personal gut feeling is that the outside view is probably the correct one, but that's all I can say. It plays basically no part at all in my view of the brethren's good and bad points, and I think most of my age would feel the same way. It's in the past. What counts is how things are now, and some aspects are better and some worse - I prefer to look at them unemcumbered by history.
In answer to Joan's question, I doubt any brethren would even trouble to think about whether JND would have agreed with what went on. If you asked them, they would say "yes", still without having thought about it.
I suspect that, for an older generation than Survivor, Aberdeen was a defining moment in showing the evil of EB. For generations that have long gone, the defining moments were Bethesda or Sonship about which most of us just give an uncaring shrug.
Although I freely admit to not knowing the doctrines that caused "Bethesda" and "Glanton" and "Sonship" issues, I would venture to suggest that the Aberdeen issue was a moral issue.
I believe what my sister told me. She had no cause to lie to me.
She told me that being finally relieved of the behaviour of JTJr was the main thing she looked forward to when she died.
That happened four days later.
“It's in the past. What counts is how things are now . . .”
This is a minority view. Neither the EB nor their main critics think that way, especially about Aberdeen.
Many churches, including the EB, base their legitimacy on their history. They attach great importance to the belief that they were right about whatever principle was at stake at every single division in their history, or they use a version of the doctrine of Apostolic Succession to argue that their authority was handed down ultimately from Christ.
Sadly, I have yet to see any such historical argument that can stand up to scrutiny. The mainline churches all have some atrocious leaders and some atrocious decisions in their history, and the EB got to where they are by making the most indefensible decisions at almost every juncture from JND onwards.
So I have a certain sympathy with Survivor’s minority view that what counts is how things are now. The alternative is to abandon completely any idea of a legitimate church. Their histories all have chapters that are utterly horrible.
I wonder how many Brethren there are under 40, even 50, who would care what happened 37 years ago. It was a key event, but maybe only for those of an age who were affected by it? I may not have a true appreciation of events but I'm trying to see it through the eyes of the young people. Wouldn't it seem such a long time ago to them?
Sorry to pursue this issue survivor, but the divisions that took place were generally on Doctrinal matters and not a moral issue.
As Eric commented: "To either overlook, be indifferent to, or deny this evidence which speaks for itself, places the Brethren squarely in the category of "cult"."
As I have said in another place, the issue that divided the Brethren over "Aberdeen" was whether the Man of God had the right to sleep and fondle whosoever he wanted. Those who remained "In" the Taylorite/Hales group said that he had the right to do it.
Can anyone in their right mind accept that he had the authority to do that?
The point here surely is that even the menfolk turned an embarrasing eye away from what the person they worshiped was doing. It was eventually the womenfolk who complained to their menfolk to do something about his behaviour.
Some will say that I have got a personal vendetta because of my sister. That may be. If two people commit adultery, as far as I am concerned that is between them, but when a man who purports to be "pure" is when I go along with Eric's comment that "it discredits the "unbroken line" of leadership."
I'm a mere observer, but I'm with George over this. It must have been dreadful for your sister and the other Brethren women to be petted sexually by James Taylor Jnr in 1970. They would have experienced it as a total outrage.
What perplexes me is that Brethren then, and still today, explain this behaviour as acceptable because it was the action of a 'pure man'. It is only in cults that that kind of defence is ever mounted. Ian is right that no church is free from these aberrations, but there were very few women or men in the pews of mainstream churches in the late C20 Britain who would have been satisfied with excuses of the kind that the Brethren have promulgated about Aberdeen.
Another baffling aspect of the whole event was/is the Brethren's acceptance of James Taylor Jnr's infidelity to his long-suffering and confused wife. Outsiders can't fit that piece into the jigsaw of a supposedly family oriented organisation.
Pebbles - I take your point about the current EB young people not caring, but that's because their elders have told them that everything was hunkydory in Aberdeen that summer. It wasn't; and the young people are being deceived every time the lie is maintained. When they discover the truth, their whole confidence in the EB organism may well be undermined. It is altogether a foolish policy to persist in the lies about what happened at Aberdeen.
Speaking for myself, it isn't necessary to have an opinion on one event that happened before I was born in order to reach the conclusion that the brethren are not a unique chosen people as they claim. Nor to conclude that a lot else of what they claim is arrogant nonsense.
BUT, I do get tired of it being assumed from all sides that this one event is the dividing line between those who are for the brethren and those against them. The brethren assume it as much as ex-brethren do.
If the brethren are uniquely right in the sight of God, as they believe, then nobody will ever persuade them that there was anything wrong with what happened, because it is part of the divinely ordained history of the assembly. It's a pointless argument. If they aren't, as I have come to think is pretty obvious, then why should anyone be shocked if there are dark and unpleasant events in that history?
As I say, I don't care to consider it, as it's surrounded by too powerful emotions on all sides, and has no effect on what I think in any case. It isn't an important thing in my age-groups lives. I hope all those who have the strong emotions can forgive me for that, but I've had enough of both the glorification and the demonisation of the man.
Post a Comment