Exposed: Deceitful circular by Robert Beattie, 3 March 1971 – A foundation of the PBCC

Paragraph 1a & 1b

R.J.O.B.

Events in this country have cast us much on the Lord and all our movements should be in accord with Himself who has moved very quickly and powerfully in the great deliverance He has wrought amongst the saints.

The brethren were thrown into confusion in being led to believe that they had to side with Deryck Noakes instead of accepting the adjustment from the Barbados relating to the private side of our beloved’s life in Aberdeen and other places.

THE TRUTH

Robert Beattie states Events . . . have cast us much on the Lord and all our movements should be in accord with Himself . . . From witnessed facts, his conduct at the time of writing proves undeniably that he was neither cast on the Lord nor in accord with Himself. Refer to the section A. Information about the author, Robert Beattie for further details.

Very quickly and powerfully was in fact persons acting in a precipitous and grossly unprincipled manner (removing a locality’s franchise within 72 hours of a matter being raised, without one visit), which could never have been the Lord setting it on! A meeting held in Port Elizabeth shortly afterwards produced an extensive list of principles which had been violated in this action.

The brethren . . . had to side with Deryck Noakes . . . – Deryck Noakes never wanted any party activity. He was simply standing by Jim Taylor’s service and spirit, whereas the Barbados meetings taken by George Maynard (G.R.M.) on 25-27 December 1970 were a direct contradiction of the spirit of Jim Taylor as well as denial of many of his statements. How could the Spirit of God use G.R.M. – a blasphemer – to bring in adjustment for the Assembly?!

This adjustment consisted of G.R.M:

• Insisting that Aberdeen was a once off, never to be repeated action;
• and was never to be spoken of again.
• Denying witnessed statements made by Jim Taylor.
• Insisting that the liberty and laughter that Jim Taylor had brought in should not continue.

This of course threw many of the brethren around the world into confusion!

Compare this with the principled actions of the assembly in Jansenville, Port Elizabeth’s nearest meeting, which completely give lie to R.J.O.B.’s words:

Divine principles (Newcastle – obtaining witness from the place) were gone by in Jansenville and there was no confusion, despite being pressured by Jim Brown to choose between Dercyk Noakes or the ‘universal position’. It was the devil using J.F.B. who was the one trying to throw Jansenville into confusion, and he did not succeed. (It is always confusing to disregard divine principles to satisfy another objective – in this case to get rid of Deryck.)

Instead, John Stokwe phoned Port Elizabeth from Jansenville to enquire what had happened there. Deryck Noakes asked him what they wanted to do, and John replied that they wanted to come to Port Elizabeth to see for themselves. The Jansenville brethren therefore went to Port Elizabeth, and were satisfied with the judgment that had been reached and that the assembly still existed in Port Elizabeth.

What happened with Jansenville is therefore proof that Deryck had no intention of asking anyone to side with him, and that brethen did not need to be thrown into confusion.

Read more about faithfulness in Jansenville.

(Back to letter)

Paragraphs 2 & 3

R.J.O.B.

Throughout the night of Thursday, 31^st December, and well into Friday there were many enquiries as to the ministry in Barbados by G.R.M. and also as to the Harrow action on the Tuesday, 29^th December, of repudiating the 3 day meetings with D.N. Arthur Lyon and Mr. Rawlinson ‘phoned, (I was still in London) and confirmed the repudiation and giving the facts for the action by Harrow which to my mind was very clear, which was also conveyed to P.E.

After returning, I had a long telephone conversation with D.N. and told him the reasons for the Harrow repudiation.

THE TRUTH

The reason that R.J.O.B. was still in London was that after Deryck Noakes served in three day meetings in Harrow in December 1970, R.J.O.B. took the unprecedented action of travelling to each locality in Britain where Deryck Noakes had just served. R.J.O.B. had, by his own words in the circular, been in discussion with Harrow about D.N.’s service: . . . and confirmed the repudiation . . .

R.J.O.B. was in fact in England during the time of the Barbados 3 day meetings with G.R.M. and when Harrow repudiated Deryck Noakes’ meetings there. It was witnessed that his local brethren were generally not aware of his trip and were not sure of the reason. Read the court record.

The long telephone conversation consisted of R.J.O.B. telling Deryck Noakes how his own meetings in England had been repudiated in different places. R.J.O.B.’s meetings were repudiated for him saying, in one case, ‘all the sisters want to be Madi’ (Mrs Madeline Ker) and in another case, he substituted the name ‘Madi’ for ‘Mary’ when reading the scripture. He further said that he had told a Harrow brother, Arthur Lyon, that he felt the Harrow meetings with Deryck Noakes should not have been repudiated, and yet he writes which to my mind was very clear! Liar – either in the letter or on the phone!

R.J.O.B., local in Johannesburg, was meddling in Port Elizabeth’s matters!

Find out more about the ‘Harrow judgment’

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 4a

R.J.O.B.

On the Saturday there were persistent reports and rumours that Port Elizabeth had repudiated the judgment by Harrow. In the evening, I got in touch with D.N. who denied that they had repudiated the judgment and put Ernest W. Pudney on the ‘phone to confirm this. There was another brother on the other ‘phone in my house when I had this conversation. E.W.P. asserted that P.E. had not repudiated the Harrow judgment, but it was pointed out that he (E.W.P.) had said in their Care meeting that day, that he “rejects” Harrow’s judgment, and as this went without challenge or comment it was the same as a company rejection.

THE TRUTH

Deryck told R.J.O.B. that Port Elizabeth had not repudiated the Harrow judgment absolutely; P.E. had repudiated it on the basis of the facts that Harrow had given. Ernest Pudney was present at the Harrow meetings, and therefore had a right – as a live witness – to his own personal judgment of those meetings that others did not have.

Ministry of James Taylor Jr, Volume 40 page 255-256:

. . . anyone anywhere can express his conscience about an assembly judgment.

In that care meeting it had been decided that two brothers should ask Harrow for further facts: this is not company rejection, but rather carrying the matter – a principled action – in which case no comments were needed.

Further, when it became known that there were reports going around that Port Elizabeth had ‘rejected the Harrow judgment’, contact was again made with Harrow to clarify that what was meant was that the brethren’s conscience was not carried as to Harrow’s judgment based on the facts they were given so far. (The facts themselves up to that point were all accepted).

Extracts from the meeting in Port Elizabeth on 4 January 1971, the very meeting this circular is based on, prove this:

D.N. . . . So, our collective judgment was: we couldn’t say (not that I said this, but we – collectively we said this) we could not say that those meetings could be repudiated on the basis given.

E.W.P. Yes, that’s right.

A.J.McM. That’s right.

D.N. I want to clear up, clear up, any misunderstanding; because it’s universally reported that P.E. has repudiated Harrow’s assembly judgment.

D.N. We want to get one thing straight, and that is: that one assembly cannot repudiate another assembly’s judgment just like that; because we recognise, this meeting recognises the Lord’s rights in every local assembly. Get that straight. So, of course, some people shot their tops a bit – as usual – but priesthood amongst us understands what they meant. They meant that their conscience was not carried. That’s what they meant; and we respect their conscience.

Further evidence that P.E. respected Harrow and was awaiting further particulars from them:

Peter Gibbs of Durban telephoned D.N. and told him they had heard of the Harrow judgment and that it would be binding on any local assembly. D.N. told P.G. that Durban was in a different position from Port Elizabeth. Firstly, Port Elizabeth had witnesses present who had been at the Harrow three-day meetings. Durban had no evidence and, as a matter of confidence, Durban would have to accept the Harrow judgment – in other words, not reject it. Durban must assume that Harrow was right. He also told P.G. that those in Port Elizabeth had requested further particulars from Harrow. (On Tuesday, 5 January 1971, Durban accepted ‘the Harrow judgment’.)

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 1 page 145:

An assembly judgment should be right and normally is right . . . but if a judgment has the appearance of error, it should be challenged. Ezekiel 3: 16-21

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 4b

R.J.O.B.

They refused to get in touch with Harrow where it was already accepted that they had rejected their judgment saying that it it (sic) not ”Harrow’s affairs“. After speaking to brethren from other places who had come to see the seriousness of P.E.’s position and, as Mr D.J. Pienaar had ascertained from Harrow that further facts for the repudiation were required, it was felt that the matter could be left as “sub-judice”.

THE TRUTH

To state that they refused to get in touch with Harrow is seriously dishonest – two brothers from Port Elizabeth were in touch with Harrow twice on Saturday, 2^nd January, and again on the evening of Monday, 4^th January, and further facts had been requested by Port Elizabeth, as he himself says in this very paragraph of his letter! Record of phonecalls

It was Port Elizabeth’s matter, (not R.J.O.B. or D.J.P.’s) to decide whether there were any charges against Deryck Noakes – a man is judged in his own local assembly. What must someone living in X have to ascertain from Y that further facts in Z have to be obtained?

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 5 page 156 (16 June 1969):

A brother is responsible in his own locality and facts (not judgments) should be put there.

Letters of James Taylor, Volume 1 page 302-303 (20 January 1931):

Thus if Mr H—’s conduct be even as bad as anyone might wish to make it, Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 teaches that inquiry into it and a “judgment” reached should not be in Chicago, for the meeting there is not “his city.” His city is Columbus (inclusive, according to Deuteronomy 21: 1-9, of the nearest city to that, if necessary).

R.J.O.B.

After speaking to brethren from other places . . . it was felt that the matter could be left as “sub-judice”.

THE TRUTH

In other words R.J.O.B. and D.J.P. were the self-appointed judges of P.E’s matters. This was clearly a repeat of the devil’s attack in the Glanton issue: the disregarding of Lord’s rights in a local assembly. Persons from other localities (excluding the nearest meeting – the only one with a right) were deciding how Port Elizabeth’s matters stood!

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 5

R.J.O.B.

We, here in Johannesburg, felt it necessary to declare ourselves in full support of the Harrow judgment – the matter of confidence coming into it. We did this at the reading on the Lord’s day. Other places, too, did the same as the day went on.

THE TRUTH

It is to be noted that R.J.O.B. phoned another locality on the Lord’s day, telling them that ‘Port Elizabeth has rejected Harrow’s judgment. We are affirming the Harrow judgment. We want to know where you stand.’ This was after it had been made clear to him that Port Elizabeth could not accept the judgment on the facts given, and when he knew full well that further facts had been requested!

He, in his own letter, says the matter was sub-judice on Saturday night for this very reason, and yet makes a declaration as to where they stand the very next morning, and contacts others about it! There was extreme haste in attempting to settle matters before J.H.S. arrived to take meetings in Johannesburg at the end of that week.

(There was also pressure on the Jansenville brethren to come to a decision or they would not be allowed to go to Johannesburg three-day meetings).

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 6

R.J.O.B.

Mr D.J. Pienaar got word of a meeting which was held on the Monday evening – 4th January, 1971, and on enquiring from two from P.E. he ascertained that they had not accepted the Harrow judgment saying that “the consciences of the brethren was not carried, that is all”. He then enquired from two brothers in Harrow as to what their impressions and understanding was by what had been conveyed to them, which was as follows:-

While the word “repudiate” was not used, the meaning was the same in that they said that as their consciences were not carried they could not accept their judgment. This was conveyed by two from P.E. and confirmed by two.

This action made it clear that they were in different camps to us.

THE TRUTH

This action by D.J.Pienaar from Cape Town was interference in another locality as was seen in the Glanton matter. He enquires from Harrow brothers what Port Elizabeth meant and then goes by Harrow’s interpretation of P.E.’s words. Why did he not accept what Port Elizabeth meant by their words that were clearly stated? viz: the consciences of the brethren was not carried, that is all.

How could the brethren in Port Elizabeth agree with the Harrow judgment based on the facts that had been provided thus far?

Ministry of James Taylor, Volume 50 page 82:

The brother that is with the Lord in the locality is the one who knows His mind best. These sons of the prophets . . . can talk very freely as to what is going on and they know a little; but presently we shall see that they are very, very wrong.  . . . God has placed the responsibility as to His interests on those in the locality.

Ministry of James Taylor Jr, Volume 64 page 52 (Johannesburg, 2, 4 & 5 November 1966):

J.T.Jr. . . . There is something that is there and if it is not judged and completed, we do not get a result.

F.J.F. We saw that at Glanton. What they had done was not judged.

J.T.Jr. Yes. That is a principle that the brethren need to know all the time. Local matters belong in their localities, and there is no use in anybody taking things up for somebody not in a locality. The locality is where things are to be settled. We need that principle continually amongst us, that localities deal with their own matters.  . . . Localities were to deal with the evil. I do not know anything that needs such constant reference as this, that localities deal with their own matters.

Read about the principles established in the Glanton conflict.

R.J.O.B.

. . . This was conveyed by two from P.E. and confirmed by two.

THE TRUTH

This is a false statement regarding being confirmed by two. There were two Port Elizabeth brothers, Lionel Bricknell and Arthur McMullan on the phone to Arthur Lyon of Harrow; when they called, he was taking a bath and he confirmed that he was alone when they spoke to him!

R.J.O.B.

. . . clear that they were in different camps to us.

THE TRUTH

By stating this he admits he had ‘given up’ on a whole local assembly in less than three days without a single visit! Unprincipled and unprecedented in the Recovery of the Truth!

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 7a

R.J.O.B.

The Harrow witness was rejected in that Monday meeting by D.N. asking L.E. Bricknell, “How did you get the message” to which he replied, “Two brothers from Harrow on the ‘phone”. D.N. “Out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, what are you going by the telephone for when you have got living witnesses in this room. I want living witnesses, not conversations over the telephone”.

THE TRUTH

Firstly, there were three living witnesses present in the room who had been at those meetings in Harrow. Surely it is right to go by their witness?

The following quotation is from the meeting in Port Elizabeth on 4 January 1971:

D.N. How did you get the message?

A.J.McM. Two brothers from Harrow.

D.N. On what?

A.J.McM. On the phone.

D.N. Well, I want “the mouth of two or three witnesses”! What you going by a telephone for when you got living witnesses here in this room? Now, I asked you to afford me my rights and then the next thing you try to crook me! It’s a real court of law this. I appeal to the judge. Are you the judge?

S.S.E. A very poor one.

D.N. Well, Mr Edwards, my defence is this: I want two or three living witnesses to witness against me. I don’t want repeated conversations repeated over telephones. I want living witnesses, who were present, to testify.

S.S.E. Do you want facts?

D.N. Yes, facts from living witnesses. Is that alright? Do the brethren agree with that?

Brethren. Yes!

. . .

E.W.P. I was a witness. When I say I was a witness, I was a person at the meetings.

Audio with transcript

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 2 page 103:

The telephone conversation is not . . . supported by scriptural witness 2 Cor. 13: 1.

Secondly, Harrow’s witness had been to their judgment. Witness should be to facts, not judgments.

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 1 page 133:

The Lord says, “Every matter may stand on the word of two or three witnesses.” That is what each witness says. Witness is to facts, not conclusions, judgments, or opinions.

Thirdly, Scripture says, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established.” (2 Cor. 13: 1).

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 1 page 145:

Accredited testimony is the actual word (mouth) of the witnesses.

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 1 page 127:

Matt. 18 verse 16 is “take with thee one or two besides.” This is not letter writing, it is the persons actually taken along. “That every matter may stand on the word of two or three witnesses” is the testimony of the actual witnesses.

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 2 page 103:

. . . I said the facts should be put where they belonged, as far as I recall, having in mind if there was an issue it belonged in the locality where the person now resided.

Ministry of James Taylor Jr, Volume 8, page 192:

J.T.Jr . . . Go to see your brother, that is Matthew 18.

R.W.S. Even the telephone is not a substitute for that.

J.T.Jr Where the truth is involved we had better go by Scripture; that is “Go”! It is not a telephone or a letter, that is, if personal contact is possible.

The first contact from Harrow was a call directly to Deryck Noakes from Mr Rawlison on the evening of 29 December 1970 about the judgment of the Harrow brethren. D.N. told him that he wanted proper witness; he was not prepared to accept telephonic witness. Later, two brothers from Harrow telephoned D.N. He again responded that they must bring witnesses to Port Elizabeth.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 7b

R.J.O.B.

A brother was challenged by D.N. “as to whose side he was on”.

THE TRUTH

This statement is taken out of context. Deryck Noakes did not ask anybody to side with him. These are his actual words from the meeting on 4 January 1971:

S.S.E. Do you want facts?

D.N. Yes, facts from living witnesses. Is that alright? Do the brethren agree with that?

Brethren. Yes

A.J.McM. These chaps were living.

D.N. Mind you . . . whose side are you on? Whose side are you on? Get the witness. It says – that’s scripture – “at the mouth of two or three witnesses.’

Audio with transcript

It was clear to all that D.N. meant ‘live’ (i.e. present) witness, not ‘alive’ witnesses, and hence the question: “Whose side are you on?” to A.J.McM. This cannot be interpreted as party activity – he was asking to be accorded his rights as the accused. The devil sought to make Deryck Noakes the issue, when the truth is always the point. It is a lie to state that there was confusion regarding ‘siding with Deryck Noakes’ – but there was priestly concern because of the unprincipled attack on him.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 7c

R.J.O.B.

He also said “the brethren must support me in my rights as the accused.”

THE TRUTH

The actual statement:

D.N. Well, he must go by “the mouth of two or three witnesses.” I am the accused. I’m the defence counsel, too. I demand in this meeting “the mouth of two or three witnesses” to the charges. (2 Cor. 13: 1) That’s scripture. Do the brethren accord me my rights as the accused?

Brethren. Yes

Note that D.N. used the word ‘accord’ – not support. Another example of how words were deceitfully altered.

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 1 page 121:

In the ordinary sense of justice, the accused is protected by the Court . . . The assembly is the greatest court on earth.

Ministry of James Taylor Jr, Volume 48 page 139:

The assembly is to . . . give full protection to a person under charge.

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 1 page 171:

If there is doubt as to a charge . . . it is only fair to the accused that such evidence . . . be thoroughly weighed.

Ministry of James Taylor Jr, Volume 83 page 310:

He must have a fair trial.

Why would anyone want to take away the rights of an accused as R.J.O.B. attempted to do?

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 7d

R.J.O.B.

L.E. Bricknell said twice in that meeting – “I was not prepared to subject your service to judgment” and again “I am not prepared to bring into the assembly anything that relates to our brothers service, to bring it into judgment.”

THE TRUTH

L.E.B. was stating in a principled way, that he was not prepared to bring into judgment the manner in which Deryck Noakes served, nor to attempt to judge what he meant by his words –

Who art thou that judges the servant of another? to his own master he stands or falls Romans 14: 4

and

. . . for by thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned Matt. 12: 37

A servant is answerable to the Lord as to his service, not to another locality.

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 2 page 330:

A servant stands or falls to his Master, Rom. 14: 4; as a brother he is responsible to his local assembly. The Issue is what the Lord thinks of His servants; the local assembly must act according to divine principles when any person is under charges. It must abide by the principles and establish the facts. 2 Cor. 13: 1

Ministry of James Taylor Jr, Volume 83 page 28:

The servant is a brother, and therefore he is responsible to his local brethren as to any moral matter. . . . His service is in regard to Christ. Christ is over the levites; no local assembly is over the levites.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 7e

R.J.O.B.

D.N. also said early in the meeting, “if I surrender now, the whole world comes into bondage”, and also, “The city is as strong as the man in it”.

THE TRUTH

The Spirit filled James Taylor Jr and his final year was a shining display of who the heavenly Man really is – liberated, laughing, holy man, full of grace! The spirit of Christ had come under vicious attack in Barbados by G.R. Maynard during three-day meetings that he took there at the end of December 1970. He openly condemned the liberty that Jim Taylor had established, and attacked his words. In making this remark: if I surrender now, the whole world goes into bondage, Deryck was defending this spirit at all costs and was not prepared to surrender it. He knew that if he gave in to the devil’s attack then, this blessed spirit of liberty would be lost world-wide. Indeed, in those like R.J.O. Beattie, G.R. Maynard, J.H. Symington and other grievous wolves following them, that spirit has been lost! Does the PBCC know anything about the spirit of an ascended Christ?!

The city is as strong as the man in it – this is simply Jim Taylor’s own ministry, showing that Deryck would not let one of Jim Taylor’s words fall to the ground, and was once again insisting on only his spirit and his ministry – which is the spirit of Christ.

Ministry of James Taylor Jr, Volume 24 page 268, 269, 272:

The assembly is the strong city; but how does the strong city come about amongst us? It is through the prophet, that is how it comes about. . . . You would not have it if it was not for these men we have mentioned.

. . .

But we want to value what has happened in our own times; there has been a strong city; it is because of a man that was strong. He was not afraid.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 8a

R.J.O.B.

This is an indication of the biased and unrighteous way in which things were done and also that there was respect of persons, and no confidence placed in the witness of Harrow at all.

THE TRUTH

Facts and Divine Principles were gone by in Port Elizabeth – how could this be unrighteous or biased? It is false to say that no confidence was placed in Harrow’s witness. Witness from Harrow was accepted, but the judgment could not be accepted. Judgment was Port Elizabeth’s matter. Why did Harrow not have confidence in the live witnesses in Port Elizabeth?

Letter: Ministry of Frederick Raven, Volume 20 page 293:

— but one meeting has no sort of authority to pronounce an authoritative judgment on another meeting and call on others to obey — for the Lord is equally in both meetings, and it is an invasion of His rights.

. . . If this principle were to be admitted, any unsatisfactory meeting which chose to be first in the field might pronounce on the most momentous questions and issue a decision which is to bind every assembly on earth. It would be worse than popery.

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 4 page 60:

A local assembly is responsible directly to the Lord . . . but when it acts it does so for itself and cannot bind other assemblies to its judgment.

Ministry of James Taylor, Volume 42 page 5:

Assembly actions may prove invalid . . . You say it is an assembly action. Very well, but God says, ‘You have to come to Me about that’.

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 1 page 138:

There is abundant evidence in Scripture that assembly judgments have been challenged.

Ministry of James Taylor Jr, Volume 143 page 35:

But we do not accept charges if they cannot be proved, in this city [New York]; we do not accept them.

It may well be asked, how did Harrow come to their judgment, especially after having said that the meetings were “distinctive”, with “no jarring note”? It is evident that they were acting under the direction of G.R. Maynard. During the Barbados meetings he took aim at Deryck Noakes and his service in Harrow, throughout. (He never mentioned Deryck Noakes’ name, but in court testimony, the PBCC acknowledged that he was referring to Deryck Noakes.) He ended the meetings by emphasising that, ‘any places where persons have sexualized ministry, the thing should be repudiated, and the assembly clear itself.’ Court documents G.R.M.’s ministry

G.R.M. had already decided what the charges were, before Harrow’s assembly meeting when Deryck Noakes’ ministry was repudiated! He phoned up a brother in Port Elizabeth and asked him if Deryck Noakes or the brethren in Port Elizabeth had heard from Harrow, Watford or Winchester yet. He said the charges were ‘sexualizing scripture’ and speaking against servants. This was all before Harrow’s meeting on 29 December 1970, when they repudiated Deryck Noakes’ ministry!

Harrow was pressured by someone from another place to repudiate their meetings, and were told what the charges were to be! It is therefore clear that when the facts were examined, Port Elizabeth could not arrive at the same judgment as Harrow did.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 8b

R.J.O.B.

Our beloved insisted in the Boston issue that if there were 2 or 3 who could witness to a thing it must be accepted even if there were 12 who said a matter wasn’t done or said.

THE TRUTH

There were three in Port Elizabeth who were present at the Harrow meetings with D.N, who witnessed that there was no lewdness, no wrong doctrine and no slighting of servants. Port Elizabeth accepted the witness of the three in the city on the basis of what our belovèd said at Boston.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 8c

R.J.O.B.

There are also brethren in Johannesburg who were at those meetings in Harrow who supported Harrow in their judgment.

THE TRUTH

Those Johannesburg brethren who were present said that they had enjoyed the meetings – that they were wonderful meetings, and that they were so thankful to be there. Harrow too said that they had enjoyed them, as confirmed by the letter that Leonard Goodbody wrote. These persons changed from their initial viewpoint to support ‘the Harrow judgment’.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 9

R.J.O.B.

There was in that meeting the same line of things that led Harrow to repudiate the 3 day meetings. EVIL DOCTRINE – SLIGHTING OF SERVANTS AND SUGGESTIVENESS OR LEWDNESS.

THE TRUTH

There was no evil doctrine, slighting of servants, or suggestiveness or lewdness at the Harrow three-day meetings! Read more about the Harrow judgment.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 9a

R.J.O.B.

Statements by D.N.

Evil doctrine (blasphemy)

1. “I am my own defence council – the defence is in first – he must have the first place in all things.”

2. “Let not your heart be troubled, believe in what is past and believe also in what is present. If ye believe in the Father, believe also in me.”

. . .

THE TRUTH

Regarding the first point: Deryck Noakes’ words have been changed – he said:

D.N. Now the prosecution must deliver its case first, then the defence replies. But in this case it’s a pity, I’m sorry you dopes are too slow – the defence has got in first!

. . . [After these remarks, there was a 9 ½ second pause on the recording.]

D.N. ‘He must have the first place in all things’ (Col. 1: 18). He must!

Audio with transcript

Regarding the second point, Deryck Noakes’ words were:

D.N. Well, don’t be worried – “let not thy heart be troubled” (John 14: 1) That’s what the brethren need: comforting. He would have comforted the brethren; He would have. That’s what you need. The Lord came in and He says, ‘Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it fear (John 14: 27). Believe in what is past, believe also in what is present.’ That’s scripture, you know: ‘believe in God, believe, also in Me.’ He says, ‘You believed in what is past, you believe also in what is present.’

Audio with transcript

In both cases he makes it clear he is referring to Scripture, but R.J.O.B. deceitfully presents this as if Deryck Noakes is referring to himself.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 9b

R.J.O.B.

Statements by D.N.

. . .

Slighting of Servants.

D.N. again says, “Anything whatsoever that I did that can be interpreted as rivalry to James Taylor Jnr. I repudiate absolutely and that is where I stand. Did you hear what I said there James Taylor Jnr., not James Taylor something else”.

. . .

THE TRUTH

Deryck Noakes subsequently made it very clear that what he meant by saying this was that he was not putting any other servant on the same level as Jim Taylor. If he did or said anything that could be interpreted as rival to Jim Taylor, he would repudiate his own actions immediately, without question. However, he did not apply the same standard to anyone else – if something he said was taken to be rival to another servant, he would look into it to see who was right and who was wrong, before acting.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 9c

R.J.O.B.

Statements by D.N.

. . .

Lewdness or suggestiveness

D.N. kissed a sister in the beginning of the meeting and remarked, Beautiful, wonderful kiss, and then telling the brethren they shouldn’t be looking even though it is in the Assembly.

THE TRUTH

Deryck Noakes said to a sister I want you to kiss me here. Will you do that? She answered Yes and she came and kissed him on his cheek. To twist what happened into D.N. kissed a sister is clearly dishonest – as witnessed by many brethren present at the time. Besides, what can be wrong with a pure expression of affection in the assembly? Jim Taylor kissed a sister three times during one meeting!

Deryck teasingly said to just the brother sitting right next to him that he should not have been looking. The remarks at this point were:

D.N.. . . That was a beautiful kiss, I must say. That was a wonderful kiss! Now, Mr Edwards, you should not have been looking.

S.S.E. Why not?

D.N. Why not? Did you like it?

S.S.E. Yes

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 9d

R.J.O.B.

D.N. also raised the question if going with another man’s wife is a sinful charge as to sex, then added “that’s what I am doing tonight“.

THE TRUTH

This statement is a compilation by the liar, of different remarks from the stolen recording, relating to Harrow’s ‘Charge’ against Deryck Noakes as to suggestiveness as to sex, and Deryck Noakes’ response: Well I suggest that the brethren look at Scripture. Genesis chapter 1 verse 27, at the end of verse 27: male and female created he them. I suggest that is sex.

He said separately, I am going after a man’s wife tonight. And I’ll tell you who she is, too: it’s Judy.

He did not relate this to “a sinful charge as to sex” at all. This is another example of the deceitful changes that were made to Deryck Noakes’ words: He said “after” whereas R.J.O.B. changes the word to “with” to try and make a charge of immorality stick.

Deryck Noakes wrote to R.J.O.B. on 25 February 1972:

Why did you not ask the many visitors at my house that night, including your own brother, whether there was any sign of immorality? The immorality is in your own mind. This is what I charge you with.

View letter

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 9e

R.J.O.B.

There are other things that can be added relating to that meeting to indicate the frivolous trend which was the answer to the Harrow judgment.

THE TRUTH

This statement is completely misleading and false. Deryck Noakes remarked in that meeting:

Well, the brethren should be before the Lord fully in this matter, because it has universal bearings of the most serious consequences. The brethren should be very sober in this matter, and before the Lord in it.

Audio with transcript

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 10

R.J.O.B.

Many persons from Villiers road, (those who are now under assembly discipline), seem to think that D.N.’s purity is the issue, whereas the Lord allowed a rejection of a fundamental principle to expose a line which is rival and corrupt.

THE TRUTH

The statement those who are now under assembly discipline is false because no charges were brought, and those who went by principle and did not walk out with the rebellious band on the occasion of the pre-planned Port Elizabeth walkout, were never under assembly discipline.

R.J.O.B.

. . . the Lord allowed a rejection of a fundamental principle to expose a line which is rival and corrupt.

THE TRUTH

He doesn’t say which principle he is referring to, but assuming it to be the matter of witness, it is clear that he did not know the principle!

Meeting in Port Elizabeth on 4 January 1971:

D.N. The brethren should see something that’s been happening, though, concurrently with this. . . . The Lord has spoken about persons who have not been qualified to take up what our brother said and did, and how he did it; and they were trying to do it. And by doing that, they were corrupting his ministry, and really corrupting the spirit of Jim Taylor amongst the brethren. . . .

Audio with transcript

and

D.N. . . . The brethren in Harrow came to it that there was a rival line in Harrow – working in Harrow – over a long period. This rival line took the form of someone who was close to our brother circumstantially, interpreting in his way what our brother meant, and putting that forward as our brother’s doctrine and ministry. . . .

Audio with transcript

D.N. had no part in any rival line.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 11a

R.J.O.B.

Somerset East came into the matter on the Tuesday by clearing themselves in that they were no longer in fellowship with Port Elizabeth. They are the nearest meeting to P.E. by the air route, which was frequently used.

THE TRUTH

Somerset East was falsely claimed to be the nearest meeting to Port Elizabeth but despite many many rejected approaches, letters and visits, they have never cleared themselves of the wickedness of interference in Port Elizabeth’s matters. If Somerset East regarded themselves as the nearest meeting, why did they not come and visit each person in Port Elizabeth?

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 1 page 307 (26 August 1955):

I went to K . . . and on the testimony I got there I could not now accept the M action, as it could not be established that every person in the K meeting was leprous at the time of the trouble. Every person in K would have had to be visited by 2 or 3 witnesses and leprosy established to prove that the M action was right.

Nevertheless, the statement they are nearest by the air route is plainly dishonest! The gravel airstrip outside Somerset East was used at that time by private light aircraft, but it never was on an air route! For years brethren travelled to Somerset East by road, to attend the Thursday night readings, fellowship meetings and other meetings.

The distances to the towns of Somerset East and Jansenville from Port Elizabeth, are as follows:

These measurements were witnessed and confirmed by four brethren who were present on the documented measuring trips.

It is worth noting that at the time, Uitenhage was merged with Port Elizabeth and was approximately 35km closer to Jansenville by road. However, the above measurements were taken from the city meeting room in Port Elizabeth, to the meeting rooms in Somerset East and Jansenville respectively.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 11b

R.J.O.B.

Then the ability to judge by Jansenville had to be taken into account. Jansenville is the nearest meeting by road. See J.T. letters Vol. 1, Page 289, ‘if this does not exist in a meeting confidence by saints elsewhere could not wisely be placed in it and so its nearness to the scene of trouble would fail of importance, etc.’

THE TRUTH

R.J.O.B. had never been to the town of Jansenville according to witness from the local brethren. Yet he misapplies a quotation from James Taylor’s letters to support his false claim regarding their inability to judge. Priestly brothers from Jansenville, David Betsha, John Stokwe and others, went to Port Elizabeth to see for themselves if the franchise was still there, and confirmed that it was. They proved their ability to judge by proceeding according to divine principles.

Read about Jansenville’s principled actions.

The Lord has an issue with a man who falsely challenges a Local Assembly’s ability to judge. His own brother stated that there was only one reason R.J.O.B. said this about Jansenville, and that was because they were a locality made up of black persons – racism!

To their shame, Somerset East never went to Port Elizabeth. The ability to judge did not rest in Somerset East and it was proved because no-one from that locality went to see.

Ministry of James Taylor, Volume 40 page 367, 368:

How am I to find out conditions in Corinth? How am I to find out conditions in this city? I must come here!

. . .

A local setting is a local setting; the Lord comes to the local setting, and if I am now to know, I must come to it; there I find out what is amongst you.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 12

R.J.O.B.

A few brethren nevertheless cleared themselves of the position early on the Tuesday morning and others left the room after clearing themselves in the evening. There are approximately 70 now in Port Elizabeth. Somerset East having laid hands on them later in the evening after some had gone to see the brethren there.

THE TRUTH

The persons who cleared themselves . . . on the Tuesday morning nevertheless returned to the meeting in the evening, reassociating themselves with the position that they had supposedly cleared themselves of! And those who left the room after clearing themselves in the evening did not clear themselves at all – they did not name the evil they were withdrawing from, so what were they clearing themselves of? Far from anyone clearing themselves, it was a rebellion.

Persons did withdraw from fellowship during the day, after being instructed to do so by brethren and relatives in other localities – and then they arrived at the ministry meeting that evening, to walk out with the rebellious band!

When this pre-arranged walkout took place, Fred G Pudney, during the service of God, made a statement: . . . that it is the universal judgment . . . that this city has lost its franchise . . . which judgment I have had witnessed to by five brothers in five different localities including Jim Brown of Somerset East . . . I call upon all those that are with me to follow me. No evil was named and therefore, the action was pronounced to be wickedness (rebellion).

The localities and persons ‘witnessing’ to the removal of the franchise were not named – apart from Jim Brown – and no charges were brought. The ‘witness’ who is named, Jim Brown, never visited Port Elizabeth at this time so he could not claim to be a witness.

To claim that there were 70 now in Port Elizabeth is false because they had walked out of the presence of the Holy Spirit. After the rebels left, there were approximately 190 faithful brethren in the assembly in Port Elizabeth.

Six or seven persons from Port Elizabeth went to Jim Brown’s house in Somerset East that night and were ‘received’ but this was not in the assembly. Even if the assembly in Somerset East had received them, it would still have been very a serious action – receiving a handful of persons who had left the assembly in Port Elizabeth, without finding out where the rest of the brethren in Port Elizabeth stood!

Letters of James Taylor Jr, Volume 2 page 115:

A meeting (informal) in a brother’s house is not the temple.

This completely unprincipled action of Somerset East – laying hands on the rebels, and then sending them back to Port Elizabeth as the recognised position in that city – is Glanton gone wild!

Read the letter Port Elizabeth wrote to Somerset East after these events.

Further, the Lord only removes the franchise from a place if there is not one person who will stand up for His rights. These rebels therefore effectively stated that there was no-one in the city prepared to stand up for His rights – while purporting to be doing just that – and then the next day returned from Somerset East and proclaimed that they were the assembly of God in Port Elizabeth! They ‘dissolved’ the assembly in Port Elizabeth without charges, and then re-formed it the next day?! This is against all principle, and unprecedented in the recovery of the Truth. It was all a huge rush because J.H.S. was coming to Johannesburg for 3 Day Meetings at the end of the week, so principles went out the window.

Corinth did not lose its franchise, despite not having dealt with universally reported sin of such gravity. Even if there had been severe evil in Port Elizabeth, it would not have meant that the franchise was removed.

Ministry of James Taylor Jr, Volume 32 page 310:

We would not disfranchise any meeting without proper investigation.

Ministry of James Taylor Jr, Volume 5 page 18, 21:

Ques. How do you regard a locality that refuses to take things up?

J.T.Jr You would have to be sure that that is so because . . . you would have to be sure about every person in it. You could not just go by a few that are conspicuous. . . . I think it is important to note that a locality should not be considered that way until it is found that every person in it is of that opinion.

. . .

J.T.Jr The first thing is to see if there is “a piece of an ear” in the place, to get an ear. But if you find that all the brethren are in the evil then the whole place is evil. Then it is a question for the priests to decide what to do.

(Back to letter)

Paragraph 13

R.J.O.B.

There are other presumptious things said by D.N. which is an indication of how the Devil has got in and he has lifted himself up in pride. It is a most humbling matter that the Lord has had to deal with this line of things in this country twice in about half a year.

THE TRUTH

While the other presumptuous things said by D.N. are not witnessed to, this idea is nevertheless evilly used, and R.J.O.B. states: which is an indication of how the Devil has got in and he has lifted himself up in pride. This record clearly identifies persons who had lifted themselves up in pride to act against brethren, overturn numerous Divine Principles and act against local assemblies. The attempt to destroy Port Elizabeth took place within a timeframe of about 72 hours!

During the time under consideration, Joe W Beattie, who had been the ‘leader’ in Cape Town, and who was considered by some to be the ‘leader’ for South Africa, had been withdrawn from.

R.J.O.B. says: It is a most humbling matter that the Lord has had to deal with this line of things in this country twice in about half a year. He states ‘twice’ – clearly the second person alluded to is Deryck Noakes. The Devil cannot think clearly because his head has been crushed (Genesis 3: 15). D.N. was never dealt with by his own local brethren – the only ones who could have done so! The following quotation is from the meeting in Port Elizabeth when the charges against D.N. were brought into the assembly. There were live witnesses present on 4 January 1971, who had been present at the meeting in Harrow when D.N. served:

L.E.B. The brethren there at Harrow have judged that you taught wrong doctrine there.

D.N. I see. Well, they’re entitled to their opinion. You witnesses, you must judge me. The point I am bringing out again: if I taught wrong doctrine in Harrow, there were witnesses, living witnesses present. Let them witness to the wrong doctrine.

E.W.P. I can’t witness to any wrong doctrine.

R.C.N. Nor can I.

. . .

A.J.McM. There’s a third witness.

. . .

A.G.P. There’s no wrong doctrine.

Audio with transcript

and

L.E.B. This is the charge as stated by Harrow, though . . . That you said that both purity and the rights of an apostle applied to Mr Taylor’s movements at Aberdeen.

E.W.A. As wrong doctrine?

L.E.B. That is claimed to be wrong doctrine.

. . .

D.N. You don’t need a witness. I admit I said it.

E.W.A. Well, that is correct doctrine in my judgment.

Brethren. Yes

L.E.B. And mine.

Brethren. Amen!

Audio with transcript

Likewise, the other matters raised by Harrow did not give D.N.’s local brethren any reason to take action against him, based on what was conveyed to them.

(Back to letter)