Belfast

15 January 1995

Dear Mr Gamble,

I am writing to you to give you a brief summary of my impressions on our telephone conversations and meeting of 14th November.  I have also enclosed a summary of the main points which were discussed, as I recall them.

1.        The most outstanding impression was of a ruthless fanaticism and a remarkable lack of many Christian qualities (compassion, mercy, etc.). 

2.        The understanding of many questions and issues was shallow, and many important issues were considered in a superficial manner.  An overriding impression was of a pride in mediocrity.  A typical issue was the question of the authenticity of the books which give accounts of the foundation of the testimony and the life of Edward Cooney.  A blind refusal to read these accounts and form an opinion will satisfy only the fanatical element among the converts.

3.        Both yourself and Bertie Anderson appear to be completely out of touch with the reality of the moral standards of many converts within the testimony.

4.        I suggest that straightforward honesty dictates that workers should refrain from perpetuating the myth that the testimony is 'not an organization' (i.e. is not organized) and has 'no money' (i.e. no central fund).

5.        I suggest that workers should refrain from misleading converts on the origin of the sect.  In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, workers should acknowledge that William Irvine founded the sect around 1900, and was aided slightly later by Edward Cooney.  In my opinion, it is not necessary for workers to make vague and misleading statements implying a 1st century origin.

6.        I have a genuine fear that some young people may be driven to suicide as a result of the tactics used by some workers to 'trouble' individuals, prior to extracting a 'profession'.  There is also a need to address the issue of the large number converts' children who are emotionally/psychologically scarred and as a result of their exposure to the current doctrines expressed by a section of the body of workers - many have become social misfits who are unable to lead 'normal' lives inside or outside the testimony.  One result is that many are unable to find suitable single partners, and affairs with married partners are becoming common.

7.        From our discussions, I get a strong impression that decision making within the testimony is conducted in a fashion similar to that of a dictatorship.  Worker meetings are secret affairs, with no accountability to bishops, etc.  I suggest that workers should involve bishops in decision making - this may help to narrow the gulf between reality and the current perceptions held by many workers.  Involvement of bishops may also help to clarify whether the role of workers is to rule or to serve.

8.        Inconsistency in policy on issues such as radios should be addressed.

9.        If (a) ownership of televisions, and (b) refusal to disagree with a partner who owns a television are to be punished by excommunication, then these rulings must be applied with impartiality throughout the membership.

10.      It should be acknowledged that:

           (a)       The current leadership have a duty to accept responsibility for the mishandling of the Noel Tanner affair.

           (b)      The senior workers were guilty of putting their own interests, Noel Tanner's interest and the interests of the testimony before those of the victims of homosexual abuse by Noel Tanner.

           (c)       The failure to make any effort to determine the identity of the victims, and to offer any apology and compassion is a serious indictment of all the workers who were aware of the activities of Noel Tanner.

11.      Both yourself and Bertie Anderson still appear to see to see the removal of the meeting from my parents' home and excommunication as one issue.  As stated in my letter of 14 October, excommunication was a separate and much more serious matter.

Finally, I should like to remind you that I have very strong objections to any reference to my parents, whether direct or implied, by any worker in any meeting.  I urge you to ensure that I will not hear of any such references, as I will have no hesitation in responding appropriately.  Also, I should like you to give serious consideration to the possibility that you are misguided in your judgement of my parents, and to consider the weight your conscience will have to bear.

Yours sincerely

Dr Robert Kee