This is Ivor's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Ivor's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Ivor
Recent Activity
Paul, David Ainsworth did publish his conclusions: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Governance/article/1172289/peter-bone-meet-nick-hurd-discuss-bill-amend-charities-act-2011/ Conservative MP's bill seeks to reinstate the presumption of public benefit for religious organisations An MP who has proposed a bill to reinstate the presumption of public benefit for religious organisations will today meet with the charities minister, Nick Hurd, to discuss it. Peter Bone, Conservative MP for Wellingborough, presented a Ten Minute Rule Motion in the House of Commons on 19 December seeking leave to bring a bill to amend the Charities Act 2011 to "treat all religious institutions as charities". Bone said yesterday on BBC’s The Big Questions programme that the bill will contain three tests that an organisation must pass before it can be a charity: it must either provide prayer, do social work and education or provide money to other charities. He said that sham charities and those that have harmful doctrines would also not be permitted. The motion passed its first reading in December by a majority of 166 to seven. A second reading of the bill, which is formally titled the Charities Act 2011 (Amendment) Bill, has been scheduled to take place on 22 March, although parliament is not due to be sitting on that day. It is rare that bills introduced under the 10-minute rule become law because they are usually opposed by the government in the later stages. The majority pass their first reading without any opposition. Bone’s bill was introduced in response to a recent decision by the Charity Commission to refuse charitable status to the Preston Down Trust, a congregation of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, a religious group which practices a "doctrine of separation" which limits their contact with the outside world. The Brethren have since appealed to the charity tribunal. A Charity Commission spokeswoman said: "Judging from his comments during the BBC programme, Mr Bone’s test appears different in nature as well as content to the commission’s understanding of the public benefit requirement for religious charities in charity law. "The public benefit of a religion derives from the positive impact the organisation’s doctrines and practices have on the wider community: activities carried out by a religious organisation have to be seen in that context. "Demonstrating public benefit is not an onerous task for religious organisations – the commission registers hundreds of religious charities each year." There's already a foolish comment from B Temple who seems to be an Exclusive Brethren lobbyist from his comments in various places.
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2013 on Exclusively foolish cult at Paul Flynn - Read My Day
Wilton Park quote: “Christian sect school” The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church is a mainstream Christian Church holding substantially the same doctrines as the Church of England. The PBCC is not a sect but is structured and operates on common Christian ground as taught by Holy Scripture which is available for all Christians. As this is so blatantly untrue, what confidence can be given to the remainder of their press release. (Does the CofE shut up or internally exclude its members for watching TV/going to the pub/having a coffee with a neighbour etc. NO. Does the CofE withdraw or ex-communicate people for the same as above and other sillies. NO. Does the CofE have its church buildings behind barred and gated enclosures? No. Does the CofE lock its doors [and its security gates] after a service starts? NO Do visitors to a CofE service have to phone in advance to gain entry and only be granted entry if they are 'well disposed'. NO. The list could continue. Neither the CofE nor other mainstream Churches are anything like the Exclusive Brethren. In my opinion, yes, they are a sect, there's nothing mainstream about them.
Mr Flyyn: It looks like you colleagues continue to do a good job (unlike the BBC): The link refers to the Exclusive Brethren: Parliamentarians gather evidence of alleged 'harm' from former Plymouth Brethren http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/bulletin/third_sector_daily_bulletin/article/1168609/parliamentarians-gather-evidence-alleged-harm-former-plymouth-brethren/?DCMP=EMC-CONThirdSectorDaily where Baroness O’Loan said she had not yet decided what she might do with evidence given to her but that she was concerned about the restrictions of the Brethren way of life, and its effect on children. "At the moment we are just gathering evidence," she said. "We have not decided what we would do next. "But we need to know more. If this organisation is being funded by us because it’s a charity, we need to be sure that its charitable status is justified." She said she was concerned about the fact young people were not allowed to go to university or join groups outside their own community. O'Loan said she was also keen to find out whether the disciplinary process of "shutting up", where members of the congregation stopped speaking to a particular individual, was practised on children.
I think their signage is a clear attempt to bamboozle people into thinking it's a place of public worship (It also means that no rates are paid on the building) while making it as difficult as possible to attend in reality. Once vetting has occurred am I right in thinking the visitor is no longer a member of the public, but now a guest? So how does that fit with public worship?
HuwOs I'd say John Handel has been far more sanctimonious and patronising elsewhere - say on Third Sector's website and the TES website where he addresses Suzie as 'dear' and other such epithets. Clearly separated from the real non-sexist world :-)
Toggle Commented Jan 11, 2013 on How MPs were conned at Paul Flynn - Read My Day
I'm sure there are more charities than that - quite apart from each meeting hall etc. How about CENTRAL G H TRUST which had income of over £1million and claimed nearly £1/4 million in Gift Aid on top of that to help build EB Meeting Halls that year.
Toggle Commented Jan 10, 2013 on How MPs were conned at Paul Flynn - Read My Day
Michael Waterson, We’re not stupid. We spotted the slick PR machine crank up; the flurry of charitable acts appear out of nowhere; the name change to more publically acceptable one, all just after this whole sorry mess went public. That’s right, just at the same time as the Charity Commissioners denied the Exclusive Brethren charitable status. Strange co-incidence that? So, no it’s not about giving, giving, giving. Do you really believe we’re that gullible to think this exclusive and reclusive self serving sect has had a sudden change of heart to become outward looking and concerned with the people it was previously told to hate? Rather, more and more of us are becoming concerned about the harm done to members and ex-members (the public) by the policy of (non-scriptural) extreme separation which prevents ex-Exclusive Brethren from seeing children, parents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, grand-parents etc who remain in the Exclusive Brethren. It also prevents members of the public from even sharing the most basic of human relationships such as a cup of tea together as that would defile them. Do I want my tax supporting this system. Clearly NO!
Toggle Commented Jan 6, 2013 on How MPs were conned at Paul Flynn - Read My Day
John Handel I see on Third Sector you question which name is referred to regarding the Exclusive Brethren/Plymouth Brethren Christina Church and why is the name important? The Plymouth Brethren name goes back many centuries after founding by John Darby. Sadly Darby was a divisive man and led the first schism which divided the Brethren movement into open and closed groups. The open group has had many luminaries over the centuries including the like of George Muller, FF Bruce, WE Vines, Thomas Barnardo, and many others. This open group is also referred to as Christian Brethren. The other group, the closed or exclusive group did as the name suggests and looked inward rather than outward. For the current Exclusive Brethren (many schisms later, and even more exclusive over the centuries) to now put on the publically respected clothing of the Open/Christian Brethren can be seen at the best as obfuscation, or at the worst, deception to attempt to convince the public that they’re the good guys and have been for centuries. Sad really. For info on the Open/Christian Brethren see here: http://www.brethrenonline.org/faqs/Brethren.htm They remain socially involved evangelical church.
John Handel: I despair of MPs like Mr Bone who have not done any basic research to find out who these men in nice suits lobbying them are. Five minutes on a search engine is all it takes ... Thankfully despite the Exclusive Brethren’s best efforts, spin doctors and PR merchants the majority of the Christian Church do not feel threatened by the Charity Commissioners. Why? Because public benefit is so interwoven into the fabric of their organisations they do not have to think twice about it. But let’s be sure: The Evangelical Alliance met with the Charity Commissioners to be 100% sure this did not affect their members and got the following reassurances and clarification: http://www.eauk.org/current-affairs/news/the-advancement-of-religion-and-public-benefit.cfm 1.under the current law the provision of services of public worship which are genuinely open to anyone to attend is in itself sufficient to satisfy the public benefit requirement even if, in practice, the numbers attending such services are small; 2.contrary to what has been reported in the press, the Commission confirmed that there is no difficulty in restricting access to the sacrament of Holy Communion in accordance with denominational requirements. Difficulties only arise if restrictions are imposed upon access to the worship services of which the sacrament forms a part; 3.the Commission will not involve itself in matters of doctrine except where the outworking of particular doctrinal beliefs impacts upon the public benefit of the organisation. In practice, we understand this to mean situations where the outworking of particular doctrines may give rise to detriment or harm in which case this must be weighed against the positive public benefit in order to determine whether or not, on balance, charitable status is appropriate. There you have it - a storm in an EB teacup!
Roger: You quite rightly quote “Next week millions will remember the wonderful occasion when God sent a Saviour into the world.” But the Exclusive Brethren won’t. No Christmas tree, no visiting relatives outside the church membership, no celebratory family dinner together, no gifts to celebrate the greatest gift of all – Jesus. Just a normal day, because the EB don’t celebrate Christmas! Despite the Exclusive Brethren’s best efforts, spin doctors and PR merchants the majority of the Christian Church do not feel threatened by the Charity Commissioners. Why? Because public benefit is so interwoven into the fabric of their organisations they do not have to think twice about it. But let’s be sure: The Evangelical Alliance met with the Charity Commissioners to be 100% sure this did not affect their members and got the following reassurances and clarification: http://www.eauk.org/current-affairs/news/the-advancement-of-religion-and-public-benefit.cfm 1.under the current law the provision of services of public worship which are genuinely open to anyone to attend is in itself sufficient to satisfy the public benefit requirement even if, in practice, the numbers attending such services are small; 2.contrary to what has been reported in the press, the Commission confirmed that there is no difficulty in restricting access to the sacrament of Holy Communion in accordance with denominational requirements. Difficulties only arise if restrictions are imposed upon access to the worship services of which the sacrament forms a part; 3.the Commission will not involve itself in matters of doctrine except where the outworking of particular doctrinal beliefs impacts upon the public benefit of the organisation. In practice, we understand this to mean situations where the outworking of particular doctrines may give rise to detriment or harm in which case this must be weighed against the positive public benefit in order to determine whether or not, on balance, charitable status is appropriate. There you have it - a storm in an EB teacup!
Craig Jones Jesus does indeed speak about the world hating Him. But never does He or His Father speak about the Godhead hating the world. Quite the contrary. John 3:16 Darby Translation 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal. Just because the world hated Him it did not stop and does not stop Him still loving the world. Is this your reverse interpretation another dodgy proof-text taken out of context and mangled?
John Handel: History is never a precise science. People do say what they want to/are told to say as well as what truly happened. Police witness statements are clear evidence of this. The circumstances around the Aberdeen event can also be considered - such as the latest and probably greatest schism in Exclusive Brethren history which followed this debacle. Something happened for such a traumatic change. The history writers on balance support the view that JT Jr was drunk and abusive: A contemporaneous record of the events included a sound recording of John Taylor Juniors appalling language can be found here: http://peebs.net/Aberdeen_Incident/if-we-walk-in-the-light.php Certainly the style and the language used by Mr Taylor in *a church meeting* is far from what I would expect or consider acceptable from a church member and especially that of the worldwide 'Man of God'/Leader. Maybe if you study this you'll realise where the truth really is?
John Handel - you made me laugh! Trying to apply Assembly out-of-context dodgy doctrine on Christians outside of the EB who can read the Bible for themselves. How many more 'proof texts' like these are used? You don't really believe that verse is a catch all for all who disagree with the leadership do you?
Ivor is now following The Typepad Team
Dec 21, 2012