A secretive Christian sect is pressuring members to purge their pets
The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church denies endorsing cruelty, but former members describe drowned puppies, euthanized cats, and abandoned animals
This newsletter is free and goes out to over 24,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo or PayPal.
A largely secretive religious sect has told members they need to get rid of all their pets, a move that is pressuring some members to euthanize or simply abandon their furry friends.
All of this is happening within the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, a faction of the “Exclusive Brethren,” that is known for having strict control over its members. The PBCC has about 54,000 members total, with just about all of them based in Australia, and was a model for the fictional Netflix show Unchosen about a woman who belongs to an isolated religious sect.
They’ve apparently had a No Pets rule in effect for decades, including an infamous pet purge in 1964, but it isn’t typically enforced. After a dog recently attacked someone close to the group’s leader, though, unnamed elders (it’s honestly unclear who these people are) decided to remind everyone that they shouldn’t have any pets in the home.
The directive, a transcript of which is circulating online, cites former group leaders like John S. Hales (JSH), James Harvey Symington (JHS), Bruce D. Hales (BDH), and James Taylor Jr. (JT Jr.) saying why dogs and cats shouldn’t be in the homes because they’re “unclean.” Pets have also been described as distractions from devotion.
Four-year-old child attacked by a dog, belonging to a brother while at the brother’s house for the evening meal, on Lord’s Day, 12th April.
He sustained significant facial injuries requiring surgery. The ownership of such an animal, let alone it being kept at a brother’s home, is clearly wrong. There are reports of some brethren having reverted to owning pets, including dogs and other animals, which practice has been clearly spoken against in ministry. The following references are examples, and there are many others in the ministry indexes which all brethren are encouraged to look up.JT Jr., New Series, Volume 64, page 334
Your house is a clean place, though, but then it becomes a holy place if you have an assembly in it. That’s why you don’t have any dogs around.JHS, volume 66, page 145.
Rats and mice out, cats too!
Well, they disposed of their dogs. And now what? Well, you acknowledge in the assembly that you were wrong to have such a creature hanging around.JSH, new series, volume 127. Page 116. Regarding pets:
Thought they were finished with 30 years ago. Your house has got a pet in it. We couldn’t have a supper there, that’s all. See, the fellow raised it with Mr. Taylor about a pet, about a dog. Mr. Taylor says they’re dogs. Unclean. Get them out. But what that brother didn’t realize was it applied to cats.B.D.H. May even apply to birds, mightn’t it?
Might even apply to birds, yes. These things have all been laid down in the statute. They’re all on record.
Every household should be freshly exercised to ensure the standard represented in the great men and their ministries is carried forward and maintained.
From the Universal Elderhood
The Australian publication The Age now says that directive is leading some members to get rid of their pets in the saddest possible ways. (You can read the full article here if that one’s paywalled.)
As one Melbourne family made plans to dump their cat four hours out of town so it “could never find its way back home”, others told this masthead they would defy the order. In New Zealand, a member shared pictures mourning her kitten, which multiple people in the church said she had been pressured into euthanising this month.
…
Another family said their elderly aunt had also come under repeated “priestly” pressure to get rid of her beloved companion dog. “We’re worried they’ll finally make her [do it] now, and she’ll be totally alone,” they said.…
A Melbourne woman put down her cats three years ago when the edict was mentioned in passing at a meeting, according to three members. In NSW in the 2000s, an ex-member said Brethren asked farmers to shoot their dogs for them.
“Fear of getting caught flouting the rule means it’s kept secret,” said one member. “Though my father has always enjoyed shooting cats.”
Another woman recalled coming home from holidays as a child in the 1990s to find their litter of puppies missing. “We found out years later, they’d come and drowned them,” she said.
The directive also appears to apply to service dogs. One member told the outlet “If I’m asked to choose between my church and the dog, it’s going to be the dog.” So at least there’s a silver lining here.
It’s not like the PBCC is unique in this particular regard either. Warren Jeffs, the former leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) cult, once demanded members get rid of their pets too.
In response to the unwanted attention from this directive, the Brethren released a statement saying they definitely weren’t calling for members’ pets to be put to death.
But they’re also not not saying that.
Very few families in the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church would keep pets, as we generally avoid distractions from family, faith and God, such as television, radio, or pet ownership.
…
… This was not a ‘new directive’, but simply a reminder of a principle that was established some time ago.
The small number of church members who have pets may be minded to rehome them with a willing neighbour or colleague, or via working with their local animal shelter.
We are aware of untrue and distressing online commentary which has misconstrued this as members of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church being told to euthanise their pets.
The church would never condone cruelty to any living creature, and this position is being strongly reinforced to our congregation. We have the utmost respect for all of God’s creations.
If a member of our church ever was cruel to animals, we would want the matter to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.
So they don’t want anyone to euthanize their pets… but they do want you to get rid of those pets… If you don’t have someone willing to take those pets in, however, then do whatever you need to do as long as it’s not “cruel.” (*Wink*)
When The Age asked about the 1964 Pet Purge, the group’s leaders called it “untrue.” even though there’s documentation of that happening according to multiple news articles that were published around that time:
Members who were children at the time say they were fully aware of the rule and it traumatized them:
Back then, newspapers in Australia and overseas reported Brethren bought the gas ether to put their animals to sleep at home, when vets discovered the trend and refused to euthanise.
Some members told this masthead that other pets were killed by more brutal means — drowned, shot or clubbed — at times in front of children. At least three blind Brethren were “ordered to destroy” their guide dogs, though some refused and were instead ex-communicated.
More recently, and especially during the early COVID years, some members found companionship in pets and simply hid them from other sect members. Or they convinced themselves the rule applied to certain pets but not theirs, including service animals.
“But you never know which of the thousands of rules they’ll suddenly enforce so you’re forever on eggshells,” said one member. “A lot of us have pets now.”
The leaders were also asked why former leaders said repeatedly said members must “dispose of” their pets and why they said “The best dog is a dead dog.”
The church didn’t respond to that question.
Cheryl Bawtinheimer (née Hope) is the host of the Get a Life Podcast, which shines a light onto the PBCC and features a lot of former members, and she also serves as a sort of one-woman clearinghouse for insider information about the group.
In a conversation yesterday, she told me that members of the group are sometimes led to believe certain ironclad rules can still be bent, which is why members have pets despite the supposed ban. But because “goalposts are always moving” within the group, those rules can sometimes be made inflexible as a way to see who’s truly loyal.
When it involves getting rid of your pets, though, it may be a bridge too far for some. One current member told her “This might be the thing that ends it all,” referring to the sect itself. If members were looking for an exit before, this could be the last straw for them.
If that’s true, it raises some questions about why a religious leader would pull this particular trigger.
Here’s a theory: It’s the same reason cults like to isolate you from non-members. If you know there’s love and community and a calming presence to be found outside your religious bubble, they have one less weapon to use against you. That’s what pets are for so many people. They love you no matter what. They are an antidote to loneliness. They reduce your anxiety. It’s what religious leaders like to tell you only they can provide. In other words, pets break the façade religious cults try to create. No wonder they’re against them. Authoritarians always want you to believe you need them for everything, including comfort.
In that sense, the pets may be collateral damage for what the sect really wants: control. It’s the same logic high-control religious groups use to sever friendships, isolate families, discourage higher education, and monitor your media consumption. Every independent source of joy or identity competes with the group’s monopoly on your self-worth. Even if a pet seems relatively trivial in the grand scheme of things, that small source of unconditional love can still undermine your obedience to the overlords.
The people who are refusing to comply—or threatening to leave—are doing something truly courageous by choosing empathy over dogma. It’s the right move, though. If your religion tells you to destroy or avoid something you really love, especially when it’s harming nobody, the correct response is to abandon the religion. You deserve better than whatever they’re offering.
Want to know how a person treats other people? Just look at how they treat their pets.
Does this sect promote shooting dogs in gravel pits?