The ongoing wickedness of the ‘Harrow judgment’
- The Holy Spirit’s current voice to persons in Harrow
- Deryck Noakes’ 3-day meetings in Harrow, Dec. 1970
- G.R. Maynard’s interference with Harrow
- Harrow’s judgment & Port Elizabeth’s response
- Special meeting in P.E. on 4 Jan. 1971
- MUST LISTEN – audio recordings from Jan. 1971
- Recent contact with Harrow
- Current contact with Harrow - April 2015
A. The current voice of the Holy Spirit – summary of matters relating to Harrow
13 April 2015
In the persons of Jadon Allen and Gavin Eales, the Lord is currently knocking, to see which individuals in Harrow are prepared to go by divine principles, regardless of the cost; and who still love the Lord’s servants, including James Taylor Jr, and Deryck Noakes. Every person local in Harrow today is especially responsible, but no one else in fellowship with Harrow can absolve themselves from the matter.
Why Harrow? The so-called ‘Harrow judgment’ of 29 December 1970, repudiating the three-day meetings with Deryck Noakes, was instigated by an evil man from Barbados, G.R. Maynard, who said awful things about the Lord Jesus Christ. The persons in Harrow must face the fact that G.R. Maynard influenced Harrow to come to that evil judgment. It was directly because of his evil ‘ministry’ in Barbados that Harrow judged unrighteously, and initiated the charges, forcing them into Port Elizabeth. If it were not for Maynard, the Harrow assembly meeting of 29 December 1970 would not have occurred.
The ‘Harrow judgment’ was not ratified in heaven; it could not have been. It is rejected by Heaven, and yet persons universally insist on upholding that judgment.
Some of the effects of the ‘Harrow judgment’ are:
- The so-called ‘universal position’ has lost the presence of the Holy Spirit.
- Divine Persons have been robbed of local assemblies universally.
- Brethren have been cut off from the blessing of being led into the truth by one of the Lord’s servants, beloved Deryck Noakes.
- The local assembly in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, was unrighteously cut off from having fellowship with thousands of brethren worldwide.
- Many Levites universally have been spiritually murdered.
- Brethren universally, have been subjected to immeasurable suffering, which is ongoing.
Maynard’s interference in Harrow, and Harrow’s interference in Port Elizabeth, were Glanton ‘gone wild’. Harrow’s actions were marked by blatant disregard of divine principles, and unrighteousness. The Lord and the Holy Spirit are NEVER associated with unrighteousness.
The Holy Spirit has not let this matter rest, and through His service in the assembly has continually directed that this matter be resolved. ‘Sons of Korah’ such as Stephen Jay, Struan Ker, and others, have persistently hindered Him. Clearly they do not fear God.
As being in Harrow, the darkness and evil of this wicked P.B.C.C. cult is blatant to see. The wolves have not spared the flock. We can sense the terrible suffering and pressure. These so-called leaders are not priests.
They show no love. Only hard legality.
The Spirit of God is NOT allowing this evil, and He WILL address these issues BEFORE the Lord’s coming, which is very soon to take place. The Holy Spirit has been commissioned to prepare a bride for Christ, and those who are true will again find their place livingly in the assembly before the Lord’s coming.
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, you are urged to read the following details about this issue.
See that ye refuse not him that speaks. For if those did not escape who had refused him who uttered the oracles on earth, much more we who turn away from him [who does so] from heaven:
(Back to the top)
B. Harrow three-day meetings with Deryck Noakes, 11-13 December 1970
Beloved Deryck Noakes gave a lead at three-day meetings in Harrow, England, on 11-13 December 1970.
The theme of the meetings was the ‘feelings of Christ,’ and the object was to promote those feelings amongst the brethren, one for the other.
Much help was afforded in these meetings, as was borne witness to in a letter from Leonard Goodbody, a local brother in Harrow. He said that he could not recall one jarring note, that everyone was stirred, and he also said that he was attracted by Deryck’s respectful manner, especially regarding older brethren.
There were brethren who were local with Deryck in Port Elizabeth who attended those meetings, and they commented at the time that ‘it was fine to see all the brethren appreciating Deryck. Many of them, of course, had never seen him before but soon discerned the spirit he has.’
Others who attended from Johannesburg, South Africa, said that they were wonderful meetings, and they were so thankful to be there. (These persons from Johannesburg later changed their tune, because they were in the hands of the wicked chief priests!)
Harrow had no issue at all with the service of Deryck Noakes in their locality, until G.R. Maynard ‘took’ meetings in Barbados two weeks later.
The same could be said of Deryck Noakes’ previous service in England, in Watford and Winchester – other localities that also, under Maynard’s influence, repudiated his ministry. (In the case of Winchester: eighteen months after the meetings had taken place.)
These meetings should have been published for the feeding and building up of the saints universally, but this food was kept from them, through the actions of Maynard, and Harrow.
Deryck would have helped the brethren universally – as he did with those who remained faithful to the truth – to see the glory of Aberdeen, and to see that it was not just ‘an ambush’, but that it was a wonderful display of Christ and the assembly.(Back to the top)
C. G.R. Maynard’s Barbados three-day meetings – rejection of James Taylor Jr, and interference with Harrow
G.R. Maynard ‘took’ the lead at three-day meetings in Barbados, 25-27 December 1970. The P.B.C.C. claim to have withdrawn from this man in 1972, yet they currently fully support his ministry at those three-day meetings. They openly stated this in testimony presented to the Supreme Court of South Africa in September 1979.
They are still adhering to the ‘judgment’ and ‘ministry’ of a man that they themselves do not even own now. He is not listed in their so-called genealogy, but the P.B.C.C. sect has arisen because of him. The roots of their current position lie in that wicked man’s ‘ministry’. J.H. Symington was at those meetings in Barbados and he also supported Maynard.
Nine years later – under J.H. Symington’s ’leadership‘ – they STILL supported G.R. Maynard’s ‘ministry’, as their court testimony showed.
The devil was rampant in those Barbados meetings, desperately trying to do away with the spirit of James Taylor Jr. G.R.M. blatantly tried to overthrow J.T.Jr’s own words, and G.R.M. was exposed as a blasphemer of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Earlier in 1970, Alan Ker asked James Taylor Jr if the Lord kissed the woman of John 4. Our belovèd’s reply was, ‘Yes, and more.’ R.A.C. Ker had also asked J.T.Jr, in relation to his actions at Aberdeen and afterwards in New York, as to 1 Corinthians 9, and he said ‘Yes, it would apply.’ Alan Ker witnessed, in the Barbados meetings, to Mr Taylor Jr saying this.
G.R. Maynard attacked this witness and any others who supported what our belovèd had said in this regard. He referred to J.T.Jr’s words as ‘sexualising scripture’, and ‘ministered’ that J.T.Jr’s words were poison.
He put Harrow in the spotlight, by saying,
Most of the diversions that have come in during these meetings
have their origin in Harrow.
Alan Ker, from Harrow, was overwhelmed by the continual barrage from G.R.M. and capitulated. He was sent home to ‘put matters right’ in his own locality. His wife, Madeline Ker, was also treated in a shocking way by G.R.M., because of her service to our belovèd. She phoned beloved Deryck Noakes (he was in Port Elizabeth, South Africa) during those meetings, and told him what was going on. Deryck told her that she must not let them do it to her. She replied, ‘I won't give in.’ Alan and Madeline then left Barbados before the meetings were finished. Mr and Mrs H.G. Kingston, also of Harrow, were attacked by G.R.M. for simply stating the truth. These persons were relentlessly attacked for being faithful, and they crumbled under the pressure.
G.R.M. sent out a decree that wherever there had been the ‘sexualising of scripture’, those meetings must be repudiated.
The principles established at the time of the Glanton conflict were completely disregarded. This man interfered directly in the relations between Christ and His assembly in Harrow.
Directly after these meetings in Barbados, before Harrow had even held their own assembly meeting on 29 December 1970, to consider these matters, G.R.M. had the audacity to contact a brother in Port Elizabeth to ask if they had dealt with Deryck Noakes yet. G.R.M even knew what the charges would be. This is gross interference in another locality and a complete disregard of divine principles. It is also clear proof that the devil, through his agent, G.R.M., was operating to get rid of one of the Lord’s servants, Deryck Noakes. The devil was defeated, for which the writers thank God.
Harrow went ahead and acted on the directions of G.R. Maynard. They repudiated the meetings with Deryck Noakes, and withdrew from R.A.C. Ker and his wife. There is no evidence of any other reason for their doing so, other than the interference of G.R.M. There was no righteous basis for these actions.
It is impossible for Heaven to ratify such an unprincipled judgment.(Back to the top)
D. Harrow’s unrighteous assembly judgment of 29 December 1970, and Port Elizabeth’s righteous response
Tuesday, 29 December 1970
Harrow held an assembly meeting on Tuesday night, two days after the Barbados meetings, and this meeting was as a direct result of what G.R. Maynard had ministered.
They reviewed the three-day meetings at which beloved Deryck Noakes had given a lead, and repudiated them on the basis that:
- There were incidents that could only be described as highly suggestive of sex,
- Slighting of servants
This was conveyed to Deryck Noakes by telephone that same day, by Mr Rawlinson of Harrow. Deryck told him that he wanted proper witness, as he was not prepared to accept telephonic witness. He also told them that he had no knowledge of slighting servants, but would meet any proven charges. Later, two other brothers from Harrow phoned him, and he again responded that they must bring witness to Port Elizabeth.
Saturday, 2 January 1971
The Harrow ‘assembly judgment’ relating to the three-day meetings was then conveyed, by telephone, to Lionel E. Bricknell of Port Elizabeth, before the care meeting on Saturday 2 January 1971, by A. Lyon and N. Purdom. They also conveyed the reasons for their withdrawal from Alan and Madeline Ker the previous evening, claiming that there had been a conspiracy in Alan’s house and an attempt to set aside other servants while advancing the cause of Deryck Noakes.
L.E. Bricknell brought the judgment relating to the three-day meetings into the care meeting that same day. (He later acknowledged that he violated Matthew 18 by bringing it directly into the assembly, and also that he violated 1 Timothy 5:19 in that he received an unwitnessed accusation against an elder.) The brethren in Port Elizabeth were then faced with having the details of an action by another local assembly involving the ministry of a local Port Elizabeth brother. The brethren came to it that they could not accept the judgment as their consciences were not carried on the basis of the facts given:
- Suggestiveness is not a fact. A man can be judged only by his words. Suggestiveness is not a matter which can be judged. It was witnessed to in the care meeting, by persons local in Port Elizabeth, who were present at the Harrow meetings, that Deryck Noakes’ words were understood and they were not suggestive of sex.
- Deryck Noakes said that he had no knowledge of slighting servants, but if it could be shown and proved that he had done so, he would meet any charges.
This was conveyed by L.E. Bricknell to A. Lyon after the care meeting. In this first return call, L.E.B. said ‘P.E. rejects the charge insofar as sexualising and suggestiveness’ are concerned. (He corrected this in a later phonecall to say that ‘the assembly’s conscience is not carried.‘) He asked Harrow for more details regarding the slighting of servants.
A. Lyon and N. Purdom of Harrow called back later on the Sabbath, and spoke to L.E. Bricknell and A.J. McMullan of Port Elizabeth. In this phonecall they asserted that Deryck had been supporting a rival line in Harrow. Involved in this was the further charge that Deryck had been teaching false doctrine as to the ‘rights of an apostle’ in 1 Corinthians 9. (Deryck knew nothing about this rival line while he was in Harrow, only hearing about it for the first time when he returned to Port Elizabeth.)
Harrow elaborated on the earlier charges and gave several examples of what they said was the ‘sexualising of scripture’ and the ‘slighting of servants.’
SLIGHTING OF SERVANTS
- One instance was that Deryck had made an observation: ‘Poor James’, in reference to J.T. III. Yet James III had personally told Deryck that he had more troubles in New York than Deryck had in Port Elizabeth. This was in no way a slight.
- Another remark (which was not brought into the Harrow assembly meeting) was, ‘Can any good thing come out of Neche?’ This was judged to be a slight, yet the same words are used in reference to the Lord Himself. It is in fact said in a commendable sense, it is the place that is so insignificant, not what comes out of it. In Scripture, it was said by a good man, about a good Man. This is in no way a slight.
- They raised a matter of wrong doctrine as regards 1 Corinthians 9.
- During the Harrow meetings, a brother brought up the point that the issue at Aberdeen was purity, and not the rights of an apostle. Deryck Noakes replied that he did not think the two matters could be separated and that it was impurity in us that made us deny J.T.Jr his rights as an apostle.
- Harrow judged this to be an instance of wrong doctrine concerning 1 Corinthians 9.
- They ASSUMED that Deryck was promoting what had been wrongly ministered by other persons at that time: that an apostle had the right to take any woman as his wife, which would be the setting aside of 1 Timothy 3.
- Deryck had no knowledge of this wrong ministry at the time, and since Aberdeen he had taught that adultery applies to an apostle as much as to anyone else. He had further said that because a man is an apostle, it does not give him licence to commit sin. He had taught the opposite of what Harrow was accusing him of! He had never supported the idea that a man could have sexual intercourse with anyone other than his own wife, yet this is what he is accused of teaching.
- By Deryck’s insistence on purity and apostleship, he protected James Taylor Jr. He made it clear that not anyone could do what J.T.Jr did.
SUGGESTIVENESS (SEXUALISING OF SCRIPTURE)
Harrow said that Deryck laughed when certain things were said. One instance was when R.A.C. Ker quoted the
Authorised Version of Acts 26:
kick against the pricks.
Harrow ASSUMED that because Deryck laughed, he was thinking of the crude meaning of the word
‘prick.’ How could they judge what they THOUGHT was in his mind?
for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words words thou shalt be condemned.(Matthew 12:37)
Harrow judged that there was a rival line, apparently similar to J.T.Jr, yet actually defiling of the assembly. They therefore repudiated the meetings.
L.E. Bricknell and A.J. McMullan, as the priests handling the matter, told Harrow that the facts just given to them would be considered. They felt led to carry the matter over the Lord’s day, and then called a special meeting on Monday evening, 4 January 1971.
Details of this meeting follow in Section E.
The saints universally, not knowing all the facts, would rightly accept Harrow’s judgment out of confidence in another local assembly. However, if they had witnesses present, those witnesses would be able to state their conscience. No one can ever be forced to accept evil, not at any time or in any place.
But Port Elizabeth was in a different position:
- There were persons present in Port Elizabeth, who could witness, as they had been present at the meetings which were repudiated. They had a basis to question the repudiation.
- Port Elizabeth was the local meeting of the serving brother. It could not judge the position until it had all the facts to which to apply principles.
Ministry of F.E. Raven, Volume 20 page 293:
Bexhill presumed authoritatively to reject Greenwich, and they expect every other meeting to bow to what they have done. … 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.
During the week following Harrow’s assembly meeting of 29 December 1970, there was a universal cry for immediate acceptance of the Harrow judgment. It was even stated that, ’The Harrow matter became a banner of salvation amongst us,‘ and, in view of the general purging that was going on, localities all over the world suddenly felt the need to align themselves with this judgment. It virtually became a test of fellowship. This shows the devil’s activities, and shows again how it had its roots in Maynard. Localities were made to accept a ‘judgment’, regardless of whether it was right or wrong, but also, without any regard to the divine principles that applied in relation to Port Elizabeth. Port Elizabeth was a local assembly, and had the franchise, and was able to judge righteously.
The following are a few of the many references in the ministry about the rightness of questioning an assembly judgment:
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.
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.
Letters of James Taylor Jr, volume 5 page 156:
A brother is responsible in his own locality and facts (not judgments) should be put there.
James Taylor Jr, volume 143 page 35:
(Back to the top)
But we do not accept charges if they cannot be proved, in this city [New York]; we do not accept them.
E. Special meeting in Port Elizabeth on 4 January 1971
A special meeting was called in Port Elizabeth by the two brothers who had been in contact with Harrow, A.J. McMullan and L.E. Bricknell. There were three living witnesses present at this meeting in Port Elizabeth who had been at the Harrow three-day meetings.
In this meeting the charges were considered very thoroughly, in a priestly way, and met righteously through the application of divine principles to the facts.
The conclusion was that the brethren in Port Elizabeth were:
- not going on with evil doctrine,
- not going on with slighting of servants,
- not going on with suggestiveness.
- going to put matters in writing to Harrow, so as to keep the facts straight.
Their consciences were not carried based on:
- the facts given,
- the live witness given by persons who were at the Harrow meetings,
- the divine principles applying to those facts.
The brethren judged that they were in full fellowship with Deryck Noakes and his ministry.
It was agreed in this meeting that certain matters would be made clear to the brethren in Harrow, including that Deryck had not supported a rival line which he knew nothing about. It was also agreed that matters would be communicated to them in writing, in such a way that would help Harrow see what the Port Elizabeth brethren could see, which was manifestly supported by Scripture and ministry.
L.E. Bricknell called Arthur Lyon after the meeting, and told him:
First of all, we had come to it that it was wrong to use the word ‘rejected’ as regards their assembly judgment, and what was right to say was that the conscience of the brethren was not carried on Saturday morning when we considered the facts they gave us. And after considering further facts they gave us, the position remained unchanged, and the conscience of the brethren was still not carried. And I also mentioned that it was a specific decision of the brethren here that the proceedings of the meeting would be committed to a letter, so as to take the advantage away from the devil and keep the facts straight.
(This letter was never written. Gavin Eales and Jadon Allen, as the writers of this statement of fact, would humbly own our part in this, and acknowledge that our failure to do so gave the devil an advantage. Our exercise in setting out these facts today is with a view to the reversal of this situation, and to help persons universally understand how the assembly in Port Elizabeth judged matters as it did.)
From the facts they presented, and the witness of the brethren who were present at the meeting, the judgment of L.E. Bricknell, was that ‘there is no charge.’
The righteous actions taken by Port Elizabeth made the devil mad. He could see he was beaten through the application of facts and principles by Port Elizabeth. The devil then took another angle of attack and discarded divine principles completely, by energising rebels in Port Elizabeth on Tuesday 5 January 1971 to interrupt the service of God, and walk out of the assembly, thereby forsaking the presence of the Holy Spirit, .
This whole matter was instigated by Maynard. Charges were initiated by Harrow and forced into Port Elizabeth. Port Elizabeth considered these matters and it was worked out on a righteous basis by Port Elizabeth – until Harrow and other localities associated themselves with the rebellious band. They would then no longer have anything to do with the approved in Port Elizabeth. That has continued to today.
Priestly activity was eliminated and replaced with legality.
Since then, and especially during the last two and a half years, many attempts have been made to address this issue. Section G deals with this.(Back to the top)
F. Audio extracts from meetings in Port Elizabeth on 4 January 1971, and 5 January 1971
Special deliberative meeting, Monday, 4 January 1971
The following extracts, with audio, are some important details from this meeting.
This entire meeting with a complete transcript is available for genuine persons, who desire to trace their genealogy.
When was the last time you heard the voice of beloved Deryck? Perhaps the last time was during his service in Harrow in 1970! Perhaps never?
This section is not structured in the exact chronological order of the meeting, but the extracts have rather been grouped together, with headings, to make it easier to follow.
CLARIFICATION OF EARLIER STATEMENTS REGARDING THE SUPPOSED REPUDIATION OF THE JUDGMENT
Early in the meeting, Deryck said,
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.
He further said,
So our collective judgment was … we could not say that those meetings could be repudiated on the basis given. … I want to clear up, any misunderstanding: because it’s universally reported that P.E. has repudiated Harrow’s assembly judgment.
He further said, referring to J.T.Jr’s ministry, Volume 40:
anyone anywhere can express his conscience about an assembly judgment.
LIVING WITNESSES REQUESTED
As Deryck Noakes was the accused, he had the right to insist that scriptural principles were followed, and therefore requested two or three living witnesses to witness against him.
the mouth of two or three witnesses
Deryck Noakes insisted that the principles established at Glanton were not to be violated.
SLIGHTING OF SERVANTS CONSIDERED
Deryck stated very clearly, with regard to the charges of slighting of servants:
I’d meet any other charges whatsoever, too; I told them that. I told them that, I told the brethren that. Anything whatsoever that I did that can be interpreted as rival to J.T.Jr I repudiate absolutely. That’s where I stand.
Some detail regarding the charge of ‘slighting of servants’ was discussed.
Deryck said that he wanted it conveyed from that meeting, that he did not think he was greater than any of those men in any way.
Remarks made in Harrow by Deryck Noakes, relating to John 1:46, were considered.
CHARGE OF WRONG DOCTRINE
Deryck Noakes said,
I’m in the assembly to learn. If anyone can show me that it was wrong doctrine, I’d very willingly accept it.
There was witness given in that meeting, by three witnesses, that there had been no wrong doctrine ministered by Deryck Noakes at Harrow.
The charge of wrong doctrine, as stated by Harrow, was presented and considered.
Purity, and the rights of an apostle as seen in 1 Corinthians 9, were discussed.
Deryck Noakes’ ministry as regards adultery and an apostle:
TELL HARROW THAT … GIVE THAT TO HARROW.
CHARGE OF SUGGESTIVENESS CONSIDERED
References to Acts 26 were considered.
Deryck Noakes’ stand on no fleshly thoughts in regard to the Scriptures.
RIVAL LINE IN ENGLAND THAT DERYCK NOAKES DID NOT KNOW ABOUT
Brethren in full fellowship with Mr Noakes.
Seriousness of the matter stressed by Deryck Noakes. He said that
the brethren need to be fully before the Lord in the matter, because it has universal bearings of the most serious consequences.
Matters to be communicated to Harrow.
Local assembly answerable to the Lord.
* * *
Conversation before ministry meeting, Tuesday, 5 January 1971
After the hymn was given out, but before it was sung, F.G. Pudney interfered with the service of God by making a statement to the effect that the franchise had been removed. He named no evil. He then led a band of rebels out of the meeting room. Deryck Noakes immediately pronounced their action as wickedness, and withdrew from them for forsaking the presence of the Spirit of God.
Evil was named, action was taken, and Port Elizabeth immediately proved that they did still have the franchise.
Some questions were raised, including a question by J.R. Annear, who came into the meeting room while the others were walking out.
J.R.A. I was not here so I did not hear what he said. But I would like to enquire from our brothers Mr Bricknell and Mr McMullan what they said to brethren outside of this city on telephone conversations as to what our action had been last night.
L.E.B. I mentioned to Harrow, to our brother Arthur Lyon, that first of all, we had come to it that it was wrong to use the word ‘rejected’ as regards their assembly judgment and what was right to say was that the conscience of the brethren was not carried on Saturday morning when we considered the facts they gave us. And after considering the further facts they gave us the position remained unchanged, and the conscience of the brethren was still not carried. And I also mentioned that it was a specific decision of the brethren here that the proceedings of the meeting would be committed to a letter, so as to take advantage away from the devil and keep the facts straight.
J.R.A. Where do these brethren in other cities like Pretoria and Cape Town get their facts from?
D.N. You may well ask where they get them from.
L.E.B. I spoke to two brothers from Cape Town early hours this morning and we said exactly the same thing to them. When they spoke about ‘rejection,’ we said we had specifically withdrawn that word.
E.W.A. Are we not responsible for what we do, not what someone else might do? We are responsible that we do what is right. That is what we are responsible for in this city.
E.W.P. I may mention that Mr Taylor Jr says clearly in his ministry – and we stand by Mr Taylor Jr – that you can have a conscience about an assembly judgment.
E.W.P. And that is in his volumes, as many as you want, five at least.
P.G.P. Should we not accept the judgment until the facts have been clarified?
D.N. Mr Pugh, the position is, that Harrow has acted in a most unpriestly way, in forcing in a judgment into this city.
J.R.A. How did they do that?
D.N. They forced it into this city through two witnesses, with the facts, and the brethren here had to repudiate them as not being the basis for a judgment at all.
(Back to the top)
G. Recent attempts to resolve matters with Harrow
Deryck Noakes gave a lead in three-day meetings in Cape Town in July 2012. The Holy Spirit spoke in a distinctive way stimulating the feelings of the saints as to the translation and the Lord’s coming, and the imminence of it. However, in the days following, it was apparent that the Lord was saying that He will not come to take the church to Himself until the Harrow issue is settled.
The Holy Spirit sent three brothers to the U.K. in August 2012. Robin Jurgens, Robert Pudney and Roger Pudney visited
several persons, including Alan Ker and Keith Price, who refused to address these vital matters, because the three
brothers are associated with Deryck Noakes. These and other persons in the U.K. showed that they were still under the
influence of the unrighteous ‘Harrow judgment’ of December 1970. Two letters were sent to several persons
in the U.K.
Robert Pudney and Jared Pudney, on 31 July 2013, attempted to see whether the church in Harrow existed in an objective way. They attended a reading meeting, and afterwards spoke to Neil Purdom and Paddy Hayes. A letter, written by the assembly in Port Elizabeth to the assembly in Harrow, was given to these Harrow men. Their visit to Harrow and their testimony was rejected. Neil Purdom and others hindered the Holy Spirit.
Following that, Deryck Noakes, and Gavin Eales, on 13 August 2013, in grace, again attempted to see if the church in
Harrow existed in an objective way. They were also rejected, threatened with legal action, and Deryck Noakes was treated
in a despicable way by persons from Harrow, including Struan Ker and Stephen Jay.
Following this, a letter was sent from Deryck Noakes to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Chief.
Deryck Noakes (82 years) visited Barbados in May 2014, to testify to persons there, as the universal departure in 1971 originated in that locality through Maynard. Struan Ker, flown out from Harrow, accosted Deryck while he was parked on the side of the street. He opened Deryck’s car door without permission, verbally abused him, and threatened to bring a court injunction against Deryck Noakes on behalf of the brethren universally. This was followed up with a vicious letter letter from Struan Ker and Charles Kingston, threatening to persue legal action against him until the ‘bitter end’.
Jared Pudney and Javan Morley again visited Harrow in June 2014, and presented a full testimony to Paddy Hayes, but he also rejected it. They were then trailed and spied on for many hours, before leaving England to go to Barbados. (Subsequently, the Barbados immigration department was bribed to prevent their entry into Barbados.)
In early 2015, the Holy Spirit again directed that persons be in Harrow and the surrounding areas for testimony as to these critical issues – To bear witness as to how, through this wicked ‘judgment’ and its effects, God’s sovereignty in Deryck Noakes has been set aside. Whoever goes against God’s sovereignty, is going against God Himself.
There are many other things that the writers could tell of, all in a similar vein to those mentioned above.
Jadon Allen and Gavin Eales travelled to Harrow in April 2015.(Back to the top)
H. Current attempts to resolve matters with Harrow - April 2015
Saturday, 11 April 2015
Jadon Allen and Gavin Eales visited the Pie Day event in Barnet, and testified to persons there as to the wickedness
of what they were doing. (
Friendship with the world is enmity with God. – James 4:4) A letter was given
to several persons at the hall, and also to others in the streets who were advertising the Pie Day event.
Tim Mallinson and others insisted that they leave the Pie Day event, and told them that he and others in Barnet ‘stand by the Harrow judgment’, again showing the influence that the unrighteous ‘Harrow judgment’ has to this day. Rather than separating from evil, he is aligning himself with it.
Lord’s day, 12 April 2015
Jadon Allen and Gavin Eales were directed by the Holy Spirit to visit the Harrow Hall at The Ridgeway, so as to attend
the Gospel preaching, and to speak to persons to see if any were prepared to go by the truth. They were prevented from
doing so by Struan Ker, Steve Jay, and two others, yet they still presented a testimony these responsible men. Gavin and
Jadon were accused of being ‘contentious’. Steve Jay has forgotten the words of scripture,
exhorting [you] to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)
The Holy Spirit is not tolerating this wickedness.
Tuesday, 14 April 2015
They again visited the Harrow meeting room and appealed to the consciences of the men standing at the gate of the hall. Their witness and testimony was again rejected, with Struan Ker referring to the letter of 13 August 2013. He told Gavin and Jadon that because they had previously said that Harrow had lost its franchise, they had no right to speak with anyone in Harrow. Ker’s basis for not speaking to them was, ‘Harrow has lost its franchise’. Stephen Jay said that no one in Harrow was interested in speaking to them. How could he speak for everyone? God will not tolerate this rejection of the testimony.
It is clear that as a locality, Harrow has lost its franchise. But in exceeding grace, the Lord is standing at the door and knocking. If anyone hears His voice and opens the door, He will come in and sup with him, and he with Him. (Revelation 3:20)
Wednesday, 15 April 2015
Jadon and Gavin again went to the Harrow Hall, praying that someone with a love for the truth would have the guts to speak to them. They were met with locked gates. NO ONE from the Harrow locality would say as much a single word to them. Why are persons so scared of the truth? Is that the way to make a stand for the truth? Persons in Harrow are fleeing from the truth, but the Holy Spirit is urgent that they should pursue righteousness.
Thursday, 16 April 2015
Jadon and Gavin went to the Harrow Hall, and finding it deserted, they went on to the Barnet Hall to speak with persons there regarding their alignment with the ‘Harrow judgment.’ Again no answer to the truth. Again no one prepared to go by FACTS and PRINCIPLES.
Saturday, 18 April 2015
To date, responsible persons have REFUSED to speak with us. This section relating to the ‘Harrow judgment’ has been published so that persons can see the the facts for themselves, and we are praying that this will lead them to the assembly.
We remain ready to speak with anyone who seeks the water of life…
* * *
Where are the persons who love Christ; His assembly; the truth; divine principles; beloved J.T.Jr; and beloved Deryck Noakes?
Responsible persons such as Stephen Jay, Struan Ker, Neil Purdom, Paddy Hayes, Charles Kingston, Tim Mallinson and others, have repeatedly hindered the Holy Spirit from presenting testimony to genuine souls. They have consistently refused to go by divine principles. The roots of their actions go back to G.R. Maynard.
They have rejected God’s sovereignty. It has been the rebellion of Numbers 16. Neil Purdom has said that he has nothing to do with Maynard, yet the position he is in today came about and still exists because of Maynard.
The Lord will cause those who say they are Jews and are not, to do homage before the feet of the assembly. Such persons may be saved, or they may not be.
Hades’ gates will not prevail against the assembly (Matthew 16:18). They have not, will not, and can not and shall not. We thank the Holy Spirit for that.(Back to the top)