Letter to Somerset East

Because of your responsibility in the locality which unrighteously, although maybe ignorantly, received rebels from this city on January the 5th 1971, this letter is addressed to you in a priestly way for your urgent attention in the presence of the Lord. In doing this, the rights of the priests to approach anyone, including those under assembly discipline, are acknowledged.

At the care meeting on January 2, 1971, a responsible brother and his wife, who remain in fellowship with us, conveyed a message which they had received from A. Lyon and another in Harrow in regard to their three-day meetings. In this message, which was received immediately before the care meeting, they stated that the three-day meetings with D.N. had been rejected by Harrow because D.N.’s ministry was highly suggestive of sex and that he had slighted servants. No details were given by Harrow. Two witnesses who were present at Harrow three-day meetings witnessed to the contrary. One stated that he rejected Harrow’s judgment and two others who were not at Harrow also said that they rejected the judgment. We immediately pointed out that persons who were present at those meetings were in a different position from other brethren and that Harrow may have acted on information that Port Elizabeth did not have. There was therefore no corporate rejection of Harrow’s judgment.

Brethren could find no charge against D.N. because, as we stated:

1. Suggestiveness is not fact; and

2. If it could be shown that any servant had been slighted, D.N. had already told Harrow that he would meet it.

Refer also to the enclosed copy of a letter from L. Goodbody in which he highly commends the Harrow three-day meetings. Under influence he later withdrew this letter.

Because of much pressure from persons in other localities, some at a great distance from Port Elizabeth, and because of our desire to maintain the unity of the Spirit, it was considered necessary to have a combined meeting after the prayer meeting on Monday, January 4. (Refer to enclosed notes of this meeting printed verbatim. When reading these notes it should be borne in mind that all the evidence from Harrow had before this meeting been put to D.N. privately by two brothers who were completely satisfied that there was no charge against D.N. This explains their apparent reticence to bring Harrow’s evidence into the meeting.)

When brethren assembled for the meeting for the prophetic word on January 5, a sister gave out a hymn when the hour was come, but the service of God was immediately interfered with by F.G. Pudney stating in effect that:

“It is the universal judgment of brethren that this city has lost its franchise, that the Lord has taken it away, which judgment I have had witnessed to by five brothers in five different localities including Mr. Jim Brown of Somerset East. I am accordingly withdrawing as I wish to walk in fellowship with those elsewhere in South Africa and overseas. I call upon all those that are with me to follow me.”

(Anyone who wishes to verify the accuracy of this quotation may do so by referring to F.G. Pudney’s Court Affidavit.)

Without any opportunity being given for witness or enquiry whatsoever, about 50 persons walked and ran out of the assembly. There is full evidence that this action was privately agreed upon beforehand, including an instruction from Cape Town to one of the brethren to walk out with them tonight. These persons were immediately withdrawn from for forsaking the presence of the Spirit of God. They named no evil and, therefore, their action was pronounced to be wicked (rebellion).

On Tuesday, January 5, responsible brethren in Jansenville contacted D.N. and inquired about charges that they had heard against him. It was suggested to them that, as they were our nearest meeting, they should come to Port Elizabeth to investigate the facts. This they did on January 6, inquiring both in the assembly and privately, and all were fully carried in their consciences by what they found. One brother, Isak (alias Notho) of the Stock of Abraham, spoke with D.N. about his alleged immoral behavior with sisters. When D.N. replied that he would not make use of sisters (who could give evidence against him) if he wanted that, this brother exclaimed Jislaaik! Hulle moet darem baie dom wees om to dink dat Mr. Noakes so foolish kan wees! (The interpretation of this Hebrew is as follows: Just like the devil! The boobs, bastards and bums must be thick numbskulls to think that you would be so stupid!)

Brethren from Jansenville and Somerset East have not of their own volition used aircraft to travel to Port Elizabeth and it is therefore dishonest to regard Somerset East as the nearest meeting by working on air-route distances. You know that anyone desiring to come to Port Elizabeth would come by road and Jansenville is certainly our nearest meeting both from a time and distance point of view.

Neither you nor anyone else with you in Somerset East, apart from Zam January, has been to see for themselves. He has seen and believed and says, I have seen the assembly again, I am satisfied!

Your universally acclaimed ‘recoveries’ have since been seen drunk in the streets of Jansenville! He has invited brethren to join your ‘fellowship’ because you can go to football and smoke and they give you lots of money!

Our brothers Joe Reynolds and Deryck Noakes bear witness to the fact that when Daniel J. Pienaar of Cape Town returned from New York he spoke of an alleged old man’s disease in a burdened and agitated way. He referred to J.T.Jr. in this regard and asked Joe Reynolds to verify by reference to medical authorities that some old men catch this disease.

Deryck Noakes bears witness, and Theo Fowler can bear witness, that Robert Beattie stated after his return from New York in August 1970 that J.T.Jr. had fallen into the error of Martin Luther in his having turned to the Press and the B.B.C. for support. In the Johannesburg assembly he stated that he had had continuous doubts as to J.T.Jr. and only got relief in the assembly.

Public records of the Supreme Court prove that A. Eric Pudney deceived brethren for at least seven years by secretly doing business with a man that was not only under discipline but a self-confessed public hater of J.T.Jr. There is ample evidence to the fact that he is still violating 2 Timothy 2 by doing business with at least four other persons whom he had withdrawn from years before.

Neil and Alison Jurgens witness that James H. Symington bore false witness against D.N. in Australia early in 1971 and in reply to a challenge by Alison Jurgens he neither withdrew his allegation nor expressed any sorrow for his sin. This did not J.T.Jr.

The assertion that James Taylor III never had doubts about J.T.Jr. is nonsense, as his own printed confessions show.

Soon after Aberdeen George Maynard told Roger Stott of Brighton that he should tell the brethren that J.T.Jr. was a sick man and further developments should be awaited.

These are some of the men that you follow, or have followed, at the expense of divine principles.

Inasmuch as you have read thus far, you are now in possession of the relevant facts and we now briefly draw your attention to the following principles —

1. It is of the devil to assert that one assembly’s judgment must be accepted universally, whether right or wrong. 2 Timothy 2 – withdraw from iniquity, never accept it. Refer to J.T.Jr. Volume 40, Page 255:

   Rem. If an assembly judgment is not right . . .
   J.T.Jr. . . . those near-by . . . you would look to to say, ’That judgment does not carry my conscience‘ . . . But if somebody afar off has to do it . . . that is all.

   F.E.R. Volume 20, Page 293:

   . . . they expect every other meeting to bow to what they have done . . . and issue a decision which is to bind every assembly on earth. It would be worse than popery.

   See also J.T. Volume 59, Page 91:

   . . . the action was wrong, but the claim that was made was that the assembly had acted and, therefore, the saints generally must bow. But that was wrong. How can we bow to what is wrong? . . . an assumed assembly action may become an instrument of the enemy.

2. Port Elizabeth is alleged, by universal judgment (See J.T.Jr. Volume 58, Page 133: . . . local government . . . It is not a matter of any universal government . . .) to have lost its franchise through not dealing with some imagined evil. Corinth did not lose its franchise in spite of not dealing with a man in it that, by universal report, was guilty of such fornication as to have his father’s wife. In addition, they were puffed up but still retained the franchise because Paul says to them to purge out the old leaven. F.G. Pudney asserted, by inference, that he had the franchise on the Tuesday evening by stating that he was withdrawing from evil while stating at the same time that no one in the city had it. This is spiritual lunacy.

   Ephesus was given ample time by the Lord to repent before He would remove her franchise. Port Elizabeth was given none. This is spiritual murder.

3. George Maynard and others with him brought pressure to bear on us to deal with D.N. in direct violation of Nostrand Volume 1, page 112: . . . they think they can take anybody’s case up wherever he is.

4. The way that the principle of witness was ignored by you is very serious. Refer to J.T. Volume 59, Page 94:

   Things are said that you marvel how they can be said, because of want of facts. The principle is In the mouth of two of three witnesses … The importance of witnesses is immense. That point is developed in Matthew 18 also. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established, 2 Cor. 13:1.

   Any honest person cannot fail to see that R.J.O. Beattie’s widely circulated letter of 3rd March, 1971 is false witness when they compare it with the enclosed notes of the meeting on January 4.

   Refer to the appended Notes of a Meeting at which the divine principles which have been violated since December 1970 have been brought out.

Inasmuch as you have received the rebels from this city into your ‘fellowship’ through a private, unrighteous action in Jim Brown’s house, the Lord is not with you and you have to righteously clear yourself before you put your hand to the loaf and the cup again, otherwise you eat and drink judgment to yourself. This of necessity must include a complete repudiation of the attack on the humanity of Christ, on J.T.Jr., and on the new covenant, in Nostrand Volume 3 (Barbados 3-D. Meetings) which, while being more serious than anything else, did not form part of the immediate events in Port Elizabeth and therefore are not referred to in detail in this letter.

This conflict has enforced as never before the truth that no one knows the Son but the Father, and has brought to light a woman who will do anything for Him. Her color is black.

In the Name of Him Who is the Alpha and the Omega, He Who is, and Who was and Who is to come, the Almighty.

Amen