Reflections: The Twofoldness of Divine Truth
Link to : http://www.affcrit.com/pdfs/2010-Spring/10_01_rf.pdf
Author Archive: DCPPress
Misrepresenting Witness Lee’s Critique of Christianity
A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches
Read this document as a PDF
If we are going to voice differences, therefore, we have an obligation to make a serious effort to understand the person with whom we differ. That person may have published books or articles. Then we should be acquainted with those writings. It is not appropriate for us to voice sharp differences if we have neglected to read what is available. The person with whom we differ should have evidence that we have read carefully what has been written and that we have attempted to understand its meaning.1
This statement sets forth the responsibility of polemic or apologetic writers to represent accurately and fairly the beliefs of those with whom they disagree prior to attempting to refute those beliefs. Norman Geisler expressed a similar sentiment in the preface to a book critiquing Islam that he co-authored:
It is our belief that it is not possible to evaluate another viewpoint fairly without first understanding it.2
It is patently unfair to present a differing perspective in such a way that those holding that view cannot recognize it and then to assail those whose beliefs are misrepresented.
Sadly, that is the exact method employed in “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement” (henceforth “Response”) by Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes. In a section of “Response” entitled “Admittedly Regrettable and Harsh Statements about Other Religious Groups,” Geisler and Rhodes make several onerous and inaccurate statements by which they misrepresent the teachings of Witness Lee. These statements were made concerning the third chapter of Witness Lee’s book The God-ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy (henceforth Practice). In what appears to be an effort to convince their readers that the local churches despise all Christians and utter hate speech against their brothers and sisters, Geisler and Rhodes claim, in reference to that chapter, that:
Witness Lee … engages in a slanderous attack on “all of Christianity,” “all Christians,” “today’s Christendom” “all Christianity,” and “today’s Catholic Church.” He calls organized Christianity “deformed and degraded,” containing “false teachers,” who are “in their apostasy.”
Even in this short section, there are numerous serious errors. Geisler and Rhodes:
- Misapply Witness Lee’s references to “false teachers” and ignore his interpretation of the parable of the tares (Matt. 13:24-30);
- Misrepresent Witness Lee’s statement about “all Christians”;
- Ignore Lee’s positive appraisals of fellow Christians;
- Mischaracterize Witness Lee’s critique of Christianity based on their own definitions, not his;
- Misconstrue Witness Lee’s biblical critique of the system of Christianity as:
- Disregard the focus and content of Witness Lee’s teaching in the subject chapter.
It is evident that in “Response” Geisler and Rhodes intend to convey to their readers that Witness Lee purposely, harshly, and injuriously criticized all his fellow believers without basis and that Lee’s statements about “false teachers” and “apostasy” applied generally to those throughout evangelicalism. In the same section, they refer to Lee’s teaching as “harsh,” “lamentable,” and “inexcusable.”
Shortly after the portion quoted above with its accusation of slander, Geisler and Rhodes also accused Witness Lee of libel. In the same section, they said, “If ever there were grounds for religious libel, this would be it.” The most intrinsic, crucial matter in any accusation of slander or libel is that the statements in question must be examined in context and proven false in order for the accusation to stand. Curiously, Geisler and Rhodes did not attempt to challenge the truth of Witness Lee’s statements.
Witness Lee Rightly Rejects Modernists as Apostate False Teachers
On examination of the context of Witness Lee’s criticism of Christianity, it is difficult to fathom the visceral intensity of Geisler and Rhodes’ reaction. They complain vociferously that Witness Lee “calls organized Christianity ‘deformed and degraded,’ containing ‘false teachers,’ who are ‘in their apostasy’” as if these false teachers were genuine, Bible-believing teachers. Rather than a blanket condemnation of evangelical teachers, Witness Lee addressed a specific category of persons—those who deny some of the essential elements of the common faith. In speaking of the parables in Matthew 13 as descriptions of the outward appearance of the kingdom of God or the equivalent of Christendom, Witness Lee said:
One parable shows us that while the wheat is growing the enemy of the Lord comes and sows tares amidst the wheat (vv. 24-30). This means that the false believers, the nominal Christians, were sown into the so-called church. In degraded Christianity there are many false or nominal Christians…
In today’s Christianity there are also modernists, who do not recognize the inspiration of the holy Word and deny the Lord’s incarnation through the virgin Mary. They say that the Lord’s death was not for redemption but only a kind of martyrdom. They believe that the Lord was martyred on the cross for His teachings which were different from the Jewish traditional religion. They also deny the resurrection of Christ and all the miracles in the Bible.3
Immediately following, Witness Lee spoke of how he and his contemporaries rose up to fight against modernism when it was brought to China in the early part of the twentieth century. Concerning the modernist teachers, he referred to 2 Peter 2:1, which says:
But there arose also false prophets among the people, as also among you there will be false teachers, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
It is concerning these modernists that Witness Lee said, “The false teachers at Peter’s time, like today’s modernists in their apostasy, denied both the Lord’s person as the Master and His redemption” (emphasis added).4 Geisler and Rhodes omitted the words shown in italics above that connected “false teachers” to “in their apostasy” and lifted them from their explicit qualifiers to create a false impression. This is a misrepresentation of Witness Lee’s words. No one can deny that there are modernists in today’s Christianity, false teachers who are in apostasy and who trouble the genuine believers with their destructive heresies such as those Witness Lee listed above. It is difficult to imagine Geisler and Rhodes objecting to these statements of criticism about modernist or liberal theologians and their teachings. Geisler and Rhodes are not known as champions of modernism or of those who deny the inspiration of the Scripture, the virgin birth of the incarnate Son of God, the vicarious death of Christ on the cross for our redemption, or His resurrection for our justification. One is left to wonder why they would object to Witness Lee describing those who teach such things “false teachers” who are “in their apostasy.”
Many Christian teachers criticize the false teachers in Christianity. For example, Mike Gendron, Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries, is a Christian teacher who has many articles posted on the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute website, where many of Geisler’s articles are also posted. Gendron’s comments concerning false teachers and Christendom echo Witness Lee’s. Gendron states:
What are we to do with the false teachers within Christendom? We are to expose their false teachings and refrain from participating in their endeavors (Eph. 5:6, 11).5
The context of Gendron’s statement shows that he is speaking of the same “false teachers” as was Witness Lee, that is, those who are broadly within the system of Christianity but who deny the essentials of the faith. Yet, Gendron has not been misrepresented by Geisler and Rhodes nor has he been accused of slander and religious libel by them. Those who have written similar statements are far too numerous to mention in this article.6
Witness Lee’s use of the words “false teachers” who are “in their apostasy” in reference to today’s modernists is a legitimate application of the Bible. Geisler and Rhodes simply selected a few of Witness Lee’s words—ripped from the original sentence, severed from context—and strung them together in the most incendiary way to incite their readers to reject, perhaps even despise, Witness Lee and the local churches. This is neither fair nor truthful; rather, it is the apologetic equivalent of the anarchist’s bomb—angry, lawless, and indiscriminately damaging. Therefore, it is Geisler and Rhodes’ article, not the speaking of Witness Lee, that is laced with “harsh” and “regrettable” words.
Did Witness Lee Assail “All Christians”?
By placing the words “all Christians” in quotation marks in their accusation referenced above, Geisler and Rhodes accused Witness Lee of directly slandering all genuine believers. Such an accusation should be supported by the text in question, but it is not. An examination of the chapter shows that their charge is false. In fact, the term “all Christians” appears only once in the chapter in a passage which is far from being either slanderous or harsh. Witness Lee stated:
When we talk about Christianity in such a way, this does not mean that we do not love all Christians. We love all of our brothers and sisters in the Lord, yet we have to admit that today’s Christendom is absolutely far off from God’s eternal plan.7
A statement of love toward “all of our brothers and sisters” hardly seems to be an attack on all Christians. Yet, this is the premise Geisler and Rhodes assert. It is simply astounding that they could have read the chapter (this phrase occurs in the introductory portion of the chapter) and come to the conclusion that this mention of “all Christians” was a “slanderous attack.”
These two brief sentences contain yet another important factor that seems to elude Geisler and Rhodes. That is, in the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches, there is a definite, consistent, and crucial distinction made between the system of Christianity, which is open to criticism, and the Christians themselves, who are to be loved and received as brothers and sisters. As Lee further stated in the chapter in question, “We love all our Christian brothers and respect them, yet we cannot agree with the system they are in.”8 This important distinction was conveniently overlooked by Geisler and Rhodes.
Witness Lee did speak critically of the system of Christianity and the condition of Christendom, but not in the manner that Geisler and Rhodes would have their readers believe. Regardless of whether Geisler and Rhodes disagree with Witness Lee’s view of Christianity as a system, it remains incumbent upon them to present his teachings accurately. Only when they have fulfilled this prerequisite are they free to argue certain points if they so wish, but in doing so they must remain within the bounds of truth, proper scholarship, and decency. To conceal the fact that Lee’s criticism was directed toward the system of Christianity, not the believers, as they clearly did by including the term “all Christians” in their accusation, is inexcusable.
Witness Lee’s Appreciation of Christians in the Denominations
In “Response” Geisler and Rhodes ignored the positive statements Witness Lee made about the believers in the same chapter of Practice. The failure to point out the references to loving and respecting all Christians, as noted above, is an example of such neglect. As a further example, in speaking of his experience as a young person who was saved in China many years ago, Witness Lee states:
We [Lee’s generation of young Christians] thank the Lord for sending the western missionaries to China to bring us the gospel. They told people that Jesus is the Son of God who became a man and died on the cross for our sins. They said that if we believe in Him we would receive the forgiveness of our sins. We heard the proper preaching of Christ being our Savior. These missionaries also brought us the real name of Jesus Christ, and we treasured this. They also brought the Bible with them, providing us with one of the best Chinese translations of the Bible. We thank God for these three things: the gospel, the name of Jesus, and the Bible.9
It is clear from this statement that Witness Lee appreciated the missionaries who brought such priceless things to China. He then explained that the practice of the local churches, starting in the 1920s, was to reject the unscriptural practices that the missionaries also brought with them. He enumerated several of these unscriptural things throughout the chapter. Contrary to the accusations of Geisler and Rhodes, it is once again clear that it is not the believers or the Christian faith which are the subjects of Witness Lee’s criticism but a system with which there is disagreement because it does not adhere to the Scriptures.10 Surely Geisler and Rhodes would agree that it is right to hold to Christ, to hold to the gospel, to hold to the Bible, to love and respect all Christians, and to reject unscriptural practices. However, they ignored this and other similar statements that are crucial to understanding the teaching of Witness Lee and the stand of the local churches. By doing so, Geisler and Rhodes falsely represented a Christian teacher and misled their readers.
Witness Lee Criticized the System of Christianity, Not Christians
When Witness Lee spoke of Christianity, he spoke of the system of Christianity, not the individual believers. In his usage Christianity is a broad term that encompasses a wide variety of institutions, including many that are only nominally Christian. His use of the term Christendom was similar in meaning and scope. These distinctions are crucial to understanding Witness Lee’s teaching on this subject. Geisler and Rhodes should have pointed this out to their readers and, as a result, appropriately tempered their accusations.
Although some Christian teachers, perhaps Geisler and Rhodes among them, define Christianity as meaning either the believers or the items of the common faith, in Practice Witness Lee’s usage of Christianity meant neither of these, as was made clear in the chapter in question. A proper apologist should first endeavor to understand an author’s definition of terms and then communicate his teachings according to his definition. This Geisler and Rhodes failed to do in “Response.”
Witness Lee’s Criticism of Christianity Is Based on the Bible
Geisler and Rhodes also neglected to point out to their readers that Witness Lee’s criticism of the system of Christianity has a strong scriptural basis and that his interpretation of the Bible passages is based on the work of many respected Bible expositors throughout church history. In the third chapter of Practice, Witness Lee taught from Matthew 13 concerning the parables of the tares in the field, of the mustard seed that grew into a big tree,11 and of the woman who hid leaven in fine flour.12 His teaching in Practice concerning Babylon was based upon Revelation 17,13 and his teaching concerning hierarchy and ambition was based on the Lord’s words in Matthew 20:20-28 and 23:1-12. Witness Lee contrasted the Lord’s simple way of meeting with people in John 12 and Matthew 14 with today’s practice of gathering a crowd to listen to a speaker. These teachings, based in the Scripture, comprised much of the chapter Geisler and Rhodes addressed, yet they failed to mention Witness Lee’s scriptural basis for his words. He was not slanderously attacking Christians as Geisler and Rhodes inveigh; rather, he was teaching the Bible and applying the Bible to today’s situation. While Geisler and Rhodes may disagree with Witness Lee’s interpretations of these passages, they remain obligated to acknowledge that his criticism of the system of Christianity was based in the Bible. This Geisler and Rhodes did not do.
Deformed Christianity as Seen in the Parable of the Mustard Seed
In reference to Christianity, Witness Lee did use the words “deformed and degraded.” While these words, especially isolated as they are in “Response,” may strike some as stark; readers should pay close attention to how and why Witness Lee employed these terms. As was made crystal clear in Practice, his use of the descriptor “deformed” was based upon the parable in Matthew 13 of the mustard seed that grew against its nature into a big tree. Witness Lee said:
Another parable in Matthew 13 describes today’s Christendom as a great tree with great branches that become a lodging place for birds (vv. 31-32). This is the parable of the mustard seed. The mustard is an annual herb, which shows that the church should be like an herb to produce food. Instead it became a tree, a lodge for birds, having its nature and function changed. These birds refer to Satan’s evil spirits with the evil persons and things motivated by them (13:4, 19). They lodge in the branches of the great tree, that is, in the enterprises of Christendom.14
Today’s Christianity is deformed because it has changed its form and nature from the simple entity presented in the Scripture. It is no longer a small herb good for food but has become a great tree with many branches that often offer cover for many evil things. Today’s Christianity is a huge enterprise that bears little resemblance to the house of Simon the Leper with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus at Bethany, a pre-figure of the New Testament church (John 12:1-3). Nor does it resemble the New Testament churches as shown in Acts and the Epistles. In contrast, today’s Christianity is an organized institution with many bureaucracies—truly a great tree. Sadly, it is often from the higher branches of this tree, where the birds of the parable roost, that evil teachings and evil things descend upon the believers. Witness Lee is not alone in ascribing this parable to Christendom.15 Commenting on the mustard seed in Matthew 13, W. E. Vine says:
As the parable indicates, Christendom presents a sort of Christianity that has become conformed to the principles and ways of the world, and the world has favoured this debased Christianity.16
Witness Lee’s use of the word “deformed” has a strong scriptural basis and accurately describes the situation of modern Christianity. Granted, some may not consider this a pleasant subject. Witness Lee’s speaking is frank and forthright, but it is neither harsh nor regrettable. It is a faithful, healthy, and true word to the benefit of all believers in Christ.
A Faithful Appraisal of the Degraded System of Christianity
To say that something is degraded simply means that it has fallen below its ordinary standards or that it has negatively changed in its function and structure.17 According to Witness Lee’s teaching in Practice, the system of Christianity is degraded in its standards, function, and structure because it has developed “formalities and rituals,” “regulations and unscriptural practices,” “hierarchy” with “ambition” for position, and the “clergy-laity system.” Today’s Christianity is also full of divisions.18 It is these negative matters that kill the organic function of the members of the Body of Christ. In these passages, Witness Lee taught that to practice the negative things listed above is to take the worldly way rather than the God-ordained way in the Bible. Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, recognized some of these same elements as signs of corruption and degradation:
All that God commits to men seems to follow the downward course of declension. This was true of Israel … it is true likewise of the professing church. Leaven working in the pure meal symbolized the permeation power of certain forms of evil within the true Church itself. Leaven is universally the emblem of corruption working subtly. It means mere formality (cf. Matt. 23:14, 16, 23-28); unbelief (cf. Matt. 22:23-29); and worldliness… The elect company of believers is ever beset with tendencies to formality, unbelief, and worldliness.19
An honest reading of current events testifies that today’s Christianity is degraded. For example, two major denominations have voted to ordain homosexuals in their hierarchies and to approve of same-sex unions; two others narrowly turned down motions to do so. Divorce and immorality are rampant, so much so that there is little statistical difference between the believers in Christ and the world, much to the shame of all who name the name of Christ in sincerity. Christian ministries are under investigation for financial abuses, while some Christian ministers live in luxury and demand the perquisites to match their perceived status. Many strange and injurious teachings are propagated. Is this not degradation! This is not to deny that there are many sincere, seeking believers who, in their innocence and sincerity, are in this system. It is simply to recognize the general condition of the system of Christianity.
In 2003, Geisler withdrew from the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) because he claimed that ETS had lost its doctrinal integrity, had adopted revisionist interpretations of the Bible, and operated contrary to its own history.20 Without commenting on whether Geisler’s characterization of ETS was accurate or not, it is fair to say that in his mind the standing of ETS had degraded from what it once was. In his seven reasons for his resignation, although he spoke at length of the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture, Geisler cited no Scripture—a vivid contrast to the many scriptural passages expounded by Witness Lee in the subject chapter of Practice.
Geisler and Rhodes Distort Witness Lee’s Teaching
While Witness Lee did criticize many aspects of Christianity or Christendom, that criticism was never the focal point of his ministry. Neither is it the focus of the ministry among the local churches today. However, Geisler and Rhodes totally missed the main content and focus of Witness Lee’s teaching in the third chapter of Practice. It was their responsibility to understand Witness Lee’s statements in context, to represent those statements fairly, and then put forth their objections, if any. However, Geisler and Rhodes chose to give their readers the false impression that Witness Lee viciously and blindly attacked all Christians.
Witness Lee’s message in the chapter in question is a crucial message that needs to be heard by today’s seeking Christians. He addresses an issue of great import: how to practice the proper church life according to the God-ordained way presented in the New Testament. Witness Lee criticized the system of Christianity because major features of that system hinder or even prevent the believers from living and functioning as members of the Body of Christ according to the pattern revealed in the Bible.
As a whole Practice presents believers with a view of producing a church-life in which every member is filled with the living Spirit, equipped with the truth, and active, that is, functioning in four main areas: 1) preaching the gospel to unbelievers, 2) caring for new believers by nourishing them through personal, vital contact, 3) mutual perfecting, teaching, and care for all the believers carried out in home meetings full of prayer, the Word, and the Spirit, and 4) coming together as the church so that all believers may prophesy, not mainly by predicting the future, but by speaking forth the Word of God (1 Cor. 14:26). To this end, in the chapter in question, Witness Lee wrote:
We must believe that every believer is a living one because every believer has the living God, Christ, the Spirit of life, in him. We should afford every believer an opportunity to express his living situation as a living member of the Body of Christ. In today’s Christianity the living members are killed, and their functions are annulled.21
These few sentences express both the reason for criticism—that formality, organization, and the unscriptural trappings of today’s Christianity kill the spiritual life of the members of the Body of Christ and annul their function—and the goal of Witness Lee’s speaking—to provide an atmosphere in which all the members can become living and functioning in God’s economical move. Witness Lee closes this section with the following:
We should stand for the testimony of Jesus in this age. We need to compare what is revealed in the Bible with what is being practiced in today’s Christianity. We must stay away from the practice of the deformed and degraded Christianity and come back to the divine revelation for the Lord’s recovery… We must come back to the biblical way, the new way, the living way, that affords God the opportunity to operate among His chosen people.22
This matter is not merely theoretical. When, in the late 1980s, Witness Lee began to minister concerning the way ordained by God in the Bible, his desire was to rescue the local churches from the perils of the negative things mentioned above and to open the way for all believers to enter into a daily living as members of the Body of Christ. Since its inception among the local churches, the worth of the God-ordained way has been demonstrated many times over. Those researching the local churches, both from CRI and from Fuller Theological Seminary, have witnessed these matters firsthand and have testified of their appreciation for what they have seen. It is truly regrettable that Geisler and Rhodes have chosen to despise the testimony of their Christian brothers.
Conclusion
The opening of this article set forth the minimum requirements for a believer to critique those with whom he may disagree. It is evident that Geisler and Rhodes have failed to perform the requisite research, have failed to represent the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches accurately, and have failed to present adequate context so that the readers could fairly discern between truth and error.
In the small section of “Response” addressed in this article, Geisler and Rhodes misled their readers about Witness Lee’s references to “false teachers” who were in “apostasy” and chose to create a false impression that Witness Lee was attacking all Christian teachers. They falsely accused Witness Lee of slanderously attacking “all Christians” when he spoke only of love and respect for his fellow believers. Geisler and Rhodes ignored these and other similar statements that are in the same chapter of Practice. They also concealed from their readers the fact that Witness Lee’s criticism of Christianity was directed at the system of Christianity, not at the believers or the faith. They neglected in its entirety the fact that Witness Lee’s criticisms were solidly based in several portions of Scripture. Geisler and Rhodes failed to provide their readers with the requisite context concerning Witness Lee’s use of the terms degraded and deformed to describe the system of Christianity. Instead, they plucked these and other words out of context and rearranged them in a misleading manner. Finally, Geisler and Rhodes ignored the thrust of Witness Lee’s ministry in the referenced chapter.
Geisler and Rhodes are both signers of the so-called open letter to the leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the local churches. In that letter, they and their fellow-signers called upon the local churches to disavow similar statements made by Witness Lee, statements they presented wrenched from context and separated from meaning as Geisler and Rhodes have done in “Response.” After reading the many points above, one can understand why there has been no rush to disavow statements by Witness Lee. On the contrary, good faith efforts have been made to answer the false accusations in a straightforward way and to invite proper, meaningful dialogue.
Notes:
1Roger R. Nicole, “Polemic Theology: How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us,” The Founders Journal, Issue 33, Summer 1998 (http://www.founders.org/journal/fj33/article3.html). The author further details his observations concerning Cornelius Van Til and his research methods in Van Til’s long-running dispute with Karl Barth. Nicole saw Van Til’s copies of much of what Barth wrote and testified that Van Til had thoroughly researched Barth’s writings as evidenced by his handwritten notes on nearly every page. This is a stark contrast to Geisler and Rhodes, who reject the need to further research Witness Lee’s writings and demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the corpus of his work, let alone an accurate understanding of the portions of his teachings they misrepresent in “Response.”
2Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), p. 13.
3Witness Lee, The God-ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), pp. 25-26.
4Ibid., p. 26.
5Mike Gendron, “The Vatican’s Call for Unity” (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, Nov. 2001) http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC1W1201.pdf.
6See “Biblical Critiques of Christianity – Selected Bibliography and Biographical Notes on Sources Cited.”
7Witness Lee, Practice, op. cit., p. 25.
8Ibid., p. 28.
9Ibid., pp. 27-28.
10Witness Lee is not alone in criticizing the system of Christianity. Please refer to “Biblical Critiques of Christianity – Selected Bibliography and Biographical Notes on Sources Cited.” which addresses what some other Christian teachers say about the system of Christianity and how believers should view it relative to God’s eternal purpose for the church.
11Other expositors who have understood the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew 13:31-32 in a similar way as Witness Lee include John Nelson Darby, Robert Govett, W. E. Vine, A.W. Pink, G. Campbell Morgan, G. H. Lang, J. J. Ross, Herbert Lockyer, John F. Walvoord, and Ray Stedman.
12Other expositors who have understood the parable of the woman, the leaven, and the fine flour in a similar way as Witness Lee include John Nelson Darby, Robert Govett, C. I. Scofield, W. E. Vine, G. H. Lang, A.W. Pink, G. Campbell Morgan, J. J. Ross, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Herbert Lockyer, Lehman Strauss, and John F. Walvoord.
13Among those who have shared Witness Lee’s understanding that Mystery Babylon the Great in Revelation 17 refers to Roman Catholicism are William Tyndale, John Huss, Martin Luther, John Knox, John Wesley, John Gill, Albert Barnes, John Peter Lange, John Nelson Darby, Andrew Miller, G. H. Pember, Robert Govett, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, Charles H. Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, H. A. Ironside, C. I. Scofield, Arno C. Gaebelein, J. J. Ross, William R. Newell, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Louis Talbot, Lehman Strauss, Merrill F. Unger, John F. Walvoord, Walter Lewis Wilson, W. A. Criswell, and Donald Grey Barnhouse.
14Witness Lee, Practice, op. cit., p. 26.
16W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing Company,) p 777.
17In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/degraded.
18Witness Lee, Practice, op cit. All of these items are mentioned and expanded upon on pages 28-34 of Practice.
19Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. IV (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 11th Printing, October 1973), p. 353.
20Norman L. Geisler, “Why I Resigned from The Evangelical Theological Society,” November 20, 2003, www.normangeisler.net/etsresign.htm.
21Witness Lee, Practice, op. cit., p. 32.
22Ibid., p. 35.
Misrepresenting Witness Lee and Defending the Roman Catholic Church
A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches
Read this document as a PDF
In “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement” (henceforth “Response”), Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes excerpt isolated words and phrases from a single chapter of The God-ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy (henceforth Practice) by Witness Lee, which they then characterize as “slanderous” and as “religious libel.” Geisler and Rhodes both misrepresent Witness Lee and the local churches and apparently defend the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) against Witness Lee’s critique. They write:
Chapter Three from a book by Witness Lee titled, The God-Ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy in which he engages in a slanderous attack on … “today’s Catholic Church.” …[Lee says that] The Roman Church is infested with “Satan’s evil spirits” and “full of all kinds of evils. Evil persons, evil practices, and evil things are lodging there.” It is an “adulterous woman who added leaven (signifying evil, heretical, and pagan things).” It is “the Mother of the Prostitutes” and an “apostate church.” Again, it is “full of idolatry,” “against God’s economy,” and “saturated with demonic and satanic things.” If ever there were grounds for religious libel, this would be it.
Geisler and Rhodes’ accusations in this part of “Response” closely parrot those addressing the same chapter of the same book on the Harvest House Publishers corporate website. Many of those accusations have been addressed in previously published articles,1 but Geisler and Rhodes do not refer to those articles in “Response.” This fault in their apologetic method may reflect their stated position that they have no need of further research concerning the local churches.2
Other articles on this site directly address Geisler and Rhodes’ accusations against Witness Lee’s criticism of Christianity as a whole and what they themselves have written critically about the RCC.3 This article will examine how Geisler and Rhodes:
- Ignore Witness Lee’s positive statements about Catholic believers in Practice;
- Admit the association of evil spirits with the RCC yet attack Witness Lee for making a similar association;
- Object to Witness Lee’s statement, based on the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew 13:31-32, that there are evil persons, evil practices, and evil things in the RCC;
- Object to and misrepresent the portrayal of the RCC as the woman in Matthew 13:33 who added leaven to the fine flour;
- Misrepresent Witness Lee’s scripturally-based identification of the RCC as Babylon in Revelation 17 and Jezebel in Revelation 2:20;
- Defend the RCC from the charge of being an apostate church; and
- Use harsh and regrettable language in their condemnation of Witness Lee’s biblical terminology.
Witness Lee’s Attitude toward Catholic Believers
Before addressing the particular complaints of Geisler and Rhodes, it is helpful to examine what they chose to omit concerning Witness Lee’s statements about Catholics in Practice. As with the criticisms of Christianity,4 where it was the system that Witness Lee criticized, not the believers, so it is with the RCC. Witness Lee is critical of the RCC as an institution, a system, but has positive things to say about believers who may be a part of the RCC. For example, in Practice Witness Lee says:
We love all our Christian brothers and respect them, yet we cannot agree with the religious system they are in. There are many genuine believers even in the Catholic Church, and some of them are seeking and devout. Yet the Catholic Church itself is full of idolatry.5
It is not Catholic believers who are the subjects of the criticisms noted by Geisler and Rhodes. Rather, it is the RCC as a system that embodies unscriptural teachings and practices worthy of objection. Geisler and Rhodes should have made this distinction clear to their readers, but they did not. Instead, in “Response” they said, “It is simply insufficient to counter this by producing an admission from the LC that there are true believers in other churches.” This statement not only misses the point; it obscures the teaching of Witness Lee on the matter. To say that some believers in the RCC are “seeking and devout” is more than “admitting” that there are some “true believers in other churches.” Additionally, Witness Lee proclaimed his love and respect for such believers.6 In saying that there are seeking and devout believers in the RCC, Witness Lee made a clear distinction between the believers—some of whom are seeking and devout, all of whom are to be loved and respected—and the system of the RCC. Further, Witness Lee’s statement was not an “admission” as portrayed by Geisler and Rhodes;7 it was a voluntary statement of fact offered as a clear delineation of what specifically was being criticized and what, or more precisely, who was not. It is simply indefensible that Geisler and Rhodes obscured this important distinction.
Although Geisler and Rhodes ignored this point, others, including Catholics, have recognized this distinction in Witness Lee’s teaching. Father John Saliba, a Jesuit Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Detroit Mercy, noted not only this distinction but also its importance. Saliba testified:
…first of all, Witness Lee doesn’t harp against the Catholic Church all the time. It is not like some evangelists do on television. So it occurs occasionally, and, I remember one quote … where he says, Love everybody, Protestant and Catholic included; so I said, At least, Witness Lee may interpret Revelation against my church, but he doesn’t hate me.8
Saliba’s objectivity is missing from “Response.” As Saliba noted, Witness Lee did not major in criticism of the RCC. Saliba also commented that Witness Lee’s position vis-à-vis the RCC was a typical Protestant position, describing it as “a common explanation”9 of Revelation 17. While he sometimes criticized the RCC and the system of Christianity, the focus of Witness Lee’s ministry was elsewhere, primarily on the riches of Christ and the experience of Christ as life for the producing of the church as the Body of Christ. As demonstrated below, when Witness Lee was critical of the RCC, his criticism was solidly based on the Bible and made with the focus of his ministry in view. These facts were ignored by Geisler and Rhodes.
The Scriptural Basis for Saying Evil Spirits Lodge in the Great Tree of Christendom
Geisler and Rhodes characterize Witness Lee as saying in Practice that “the Roman Church is infested with ‘Satan’s evil spirits,’” although “infested” was their supplied editorial comment. In fact, in the third chapter of Practice, the subject of Geisler and Rhodes’ attack, the words “Satan’s evil spirits” do not refer to the RCC directly. Rather, they refer to the “birds” lodging in the big tree of Christendom (Matthew 13:31-32). Christendom is a very broad term encompassing the totality of the organized religious system, including that which is only nominally Christian. Witness Lee said:
Another parable in Matthew 13 describes today’s Christendom as a great tree with great branches that become a lodging place for birds (vv. 31-32). This is the parable of the mustard seed. The mustard is an annual herb, which shows that the church should be like an herb to produce food. Instead it became a tree, a lodge for birds, having its nature and function changed. These birds refer to Satan’s evil spirits with the evil persons and things motivated by them (13:4, 9). They lodge in the branches of the great tree, that is, in the enterprises of Christendom.10
Witness Lee then used the RCC as an example of the evils that are inherent in Christendom as a whole. Rather than claim that the RCC is “infested with Satan’s evil spirits,” he taught that in the many branches of the big tree of Christendom there are places for the “birds,” Satan’s evil spirits, to lodge and exert their influence. In some cases, this evil influence has led some to “deny the resurrection of Christ and all the miracles in the Bible,”11 among other things elucidated in the same context. Surely Geisler and Rhodes cannot object to the fact that the widespread denial of these precious truths (as well as many others) in the enterprises of Christendom is due to the influence of Satan’s evil spirits. When Witness Lee’s statements are read in context, it is evident that his teaching has been seriously mischaracterized by Geisler and Rhodes.
Although Geisler and Rhodes may hold a differing interpretation of the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew 13, they should be aware that Witness Lee’s interpretation is not unique to him.12 For example, in speaking of this parable, G. H. Pember stated:
For, in changing to a tree, the mustard must strike its roots more deeply into the earth than, as an annual, it was intended to do, and so becomes a perennial, and puts forth great branches. And hence the fowls of the air, which in the first Parable, caught up and devoured the Good Seed, are able to come and lodge under its shelter.13
As regards the interpretation of the Parable, the grain represented the seed and principles sown by Christ in the world, out of which the Nominal Church grew: the description of its unnatural growth signified that those principles would be abandoned as the Age rolled on—a prediction which was very manifestly fulfilled.14
Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary (Rhodes’ alma mater and where Geisler once served as a faculty member) also interprets the parable negatively as concerning Christendom:
In the third parable Christ presents truth through the figure of the mustard seed and the tree. Again the testimony of history and the teaching of the parable agree. The very small beginning in the early days of the church has developed out of all due proportion in mere members and includes all professing Christendom. The great tree now shelters even the birds of the air. It is significant that the birds of the first parable are represented as catching away the good seed.15
In expounding the parable of the sower concerning the snatching away of the seed by the birds, the Lord said, “When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand, the evil one comes and snatches away that which has been sown in his heart” (Matthew 13:19). It is not at all a fanciful interpretation to say that the birds in the branches of the big tree of Christendom are the agents of the evil one, Satan.
Contrary to Geisler and Rhodes’ contrived reiteration of his statements, Witness Lee is in line the entire context of Matthew 13 as well as with other recognized Christian teachers in his application of this parable.16 In “Response” Geisler and Rhodes offer no hint that Witness Lee’s statement, “Satan’s evil spirits,” was taken from his teaching of the Bible and is based on the Lord Himself identifying the birds as the emissaries of Satan in verse 4 and 19 of Matthew 13.
Geisler and Rhodes’ accusation is altogether inconsistent with Rhodes’ writings. Rhodes has associated the RCC with the occult practice of spiritism, which he describes as the contacting of non-human spiritual entities and which he contends can lead to demon possession.17 Rhodes therefore links the RCC with evil spirits. Yet, he and coauthor Geisler feign indignation at Witness Lee’s interpretation of the birds in Matthew 13:32 as referring to Satan’s evil spirits.
Evil Persons, Evil Practices, and Evil Things
Geisler and Rhodes also object to Witness Lee’s statement that the RCC is “full of all kinds of evils. Evil persons, evil practices, and evil things are lodging there.”18 Their objection is curious since they both have linked the RCC with evil things and evil practices, as shown by a complementary article on this site.19 Geisler has objected to the veneration of Mary as “practical heresy,” “indistinguishable from worship”20 and a practice that “invites the charge of Mariolatry. And Mariolatry is idolatry.”21 Geisler has also stated that the many practices and teachings taken from paganism are among the main constituents of the RCC.22 Rhodes has associated the RCC teaching of purgatory with apparitions which he classifies as an occult practice, spiritism.23 Surely idolatry, pagan practices, apparitions, spiritism, and demon possession qualify as evil practices and evil things. One is left to speculate why Geisler and Rhodes object to Witness Lee’s teachings about the RCC.
History also testifies that Witness Lee was right in his criticism. Although there are many genuine, seeking believers in the RCC, it is true that there are many evil persons, evil practices, evil things, and much darkness in that vast organization. It is unreasonable to think that Geisler and Rhodes have forgotten the Reformation and events surrounding it such as the Spanish Inquisition and the Huguenot massacre—evil things carried out by evil persons. In speaking of the massacre of the French Protestants known as the Huguenots, church historian Andrew Miller wrote:
And then, from the Pope downwards, the Catholic community lifting up their hands to Heaven and thanking God for the glorious triumph! At Rome the news was received with transports of joy. The bearer of the glad tidings was rewarded with a present of a thousand pieces of gold. The Pope caused the guns of the castle of St. Angelo to be fired, declared a jubilee, and struck a medal in honour of the event.24
Neither can Geisler and Rhodes credibly claim that the evils of the current international scandals in the RCC were not perpetrated by “evil persons.” The widespread evidence that the hierarchy of the RCC knowingly covered up crimes to protect the “good name” of the church testifies of the depth of the darkness there. These scandals alone are enough for reasonable persons to recognize that the RCC has evil persons, evil practices, and evil things residing in it. Both the historic matters and current events offered here serve as a small sampling of the evils that have characterized the RCC throughout history.
However, Witness Lee’s statement that there are evils in the RCC was not primarily based on opinion, history, or observation. His statements were based on the teachings of the Bible. Following his assertion of the evils in the RCC in Practice, Witness Lee referred to the parable of the woman hiding leaven in the fine flour (Matthew 13:33) as the source of his teaching. He linked the woman in the parable to the Old Testament Jezebel (Rev. 2:20; 1 Kings 21:25) and said that both Jezebel and the woman in the parable who added evil, heretical things (leaven) to the things of Christ (fine flour) represent the RCC.
The Woman Mixing Leaven with the Fine Flour
Witness Lee based much of his criticism of the RCC on the parable of the leaven in Matthew 13, but Geisler and Rhodes do not disclose this to their readers. They simply assert that Witness Lee says that the RCC is “an adulterous woman who added leaven (signifying evil, heretical, and pagan things).” Separated from its context, this statement is made to appear as a wild and baseless statement. However, in context it reads:
Another parable describing the situation of Christendom is the parable of the woman who took the leaven and put it into the fine flour (13:33-35). This woman, prophesied by the Lord in Matthew 13:33, is mentioned in Revelation 2:20. She was typified by Jezebel in the Old Testament and fulfilled by the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church became such an adulterous woman who added leaven (signifying evil, heretical, and pagan things) into the fine flour (signifying Christ as the meal offering for the satisfaction of God and man). The Catholic Church took in all kinds of pagan practices.25
It is evident that Witness Lee was teaching the Bible and in that teaching he referenced a few passages of Scripture that cover a great span of the Bible. Consider, in the context of Witness Lee’s teaching concerning the leaven in the parable in Matthew 13, Paul’s words to the Corinthian believers:
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened; for our Passover, Christ, also has been sacrificed. So then let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:6-8)
Although there are differing schools of interpretation concerning the parable of the leaven, there have been a great many respected teachers of the Bible who have interpreted it in a similar manner as Witness Lee.26 Therefore, Geisler and Rhodes should not act shocked; neither should they give their readers the impression that this interpretation is unique to Witness Lee. Concerning the parable of the leaven, C. I. Scofield taught:
The symbols have, in Scripture, a meaning fixed by inspired usage. Leaven is the principle of corruption working subtly; is invariably used in a bad sense … and is defined by our Lord as evil doctrine (Mt. 16.11, 12; Mk. 8.15). Meal, on the contrary, was used in one of the sweet-savour offerings (Lev. 2.1-3), and was food for the priests (Lev. 6.15-17). A woman, in the bad ethical sense, always symbolizes something out of place, religiously (see Zech. 5.6, note). In Thyatira it was a woman teaching (cf. Rev. 2. 20 with Rev. 17. 1-6). Interpreting the parable by these familiar symbols, it constitutes a warning that the true doctrine, given for the nourishment of the children of the kingdom (Mt. 4. 4; 1 Tim. 4. 6; 1 Pet 2. 2), would be mingled with corrupt and corrupting false doctrine, and that officially, by the apostate church itself (1 Tim. 4. 1-3; 2 Tim. 2. 17, 18; 4. 3, 4; 2 Pet. 2. 1-3).27
Elsewhere, Scofield made it clear that this apostate church is indeed the RCC.28 He also links the adulterous Jezebel of Revelation 2:20 to the RCC.29 Scofield’s teaching on this matter is similar to that of Witness Lee, yet Geisler and Rhodes agitate against Witness Lee and accuse him of being harsh and slanderous. However, there is no record that Geisler and Rhodes have accused Scofield—or the many others who hold similar interpretations30—of libel and slander.
It is ironic that elsewhere Geisler appears to support this application. Geisler contends that the RCC is a combination of four components: basic Christian truth, hierarchy borrowed from the Roman Empire, rituals from Old Testament Judaism, and a large dose of paganism.31 The basic Christian truth in Geisler’s list corresponds with the fine flour in the parable, while the other three items—hierarchy, ritual, and pagan things—correspond to the leaven. Geisler’s characterization of the RCC as an amalgamation of biblical truth, hierarchy, ritual, and paganism is similar enough to Witness Lee’s teaching that the RCC is the woman who mixes leaven (evil, heretical, and pagan things) with fine flour (Christ as the meal offering) to raise questions about Geisler and Rhodes’ virulent attack on Witness Lee in this matter.32 By assailing Witness Lee’s biblical criticism of the RCC, Geisler and Rhodes have placed themselves in the precarious position of tacitly defending the RCC against the very things they have accused it of elsewhere.
The Catholic Church as Mystery Babylon and Jezebel in Revelation
Geisler and Rhodes further contend against Witness Lee’s depiction of the RCC as “the Mother of the Prostitutes” and an “apostate church.” However, they again, as is their pattern, neglect to note that in saying these things Witness Lee is teaching the Bible. “The Mother of the Prostitutes” (or, harlots) is a direct quote from Revelation 17:5—”And on her forehead there was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of the Harlots and the Abominations of the Earth.” Therefore, since Witness Lee uses the words of the Bible, Geisler and Rhodes cannot possibly object to the language itself. Rather, it must be assumed that they object to the association of the RCC with the Babylon of Revelation 17. However, a great many respected Christian teachers share Witness Lee’s position that the Babylon of Revelation 17 is the RCC.33 Even many of those who teach that the Babylon of Revelation 17 is a future conglomeration of world religions also teach that the RCC will either be intimately involved with or lead this consortium. Lewis Sperry Chafer commented:
Revelation, chapter 17, describes the final ascendancy to governmental power on the part of the Church of Rome, and her judgments that must fall upon her.34
More explicitly, he states:
Two ‘Babylons’ are to be distinguished in the Revelation: ecclesiastical Babylon, which is apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy; and political Babylon, which is the Beast’s confederated empire, the last form of Gentile world-dominion. Ecclesiastical Babylon is ‘the great whore’ (Rev. 17.1)…35
Chafer, like many others, described the RCC as “apostate” and referred to ecclesiastical Babylon, headed up by the RCC, as “the great whore,” quoting from Revelation 17:1. Geisler and Rhodes should be well aware of the many other respected Christian teachers who have taught the same thing. Chafer, between the two portions cited above, quotes at length from Ford C. Ottman (Unfolding of the Ages, pp. 378-84) and C. I. Scofield to support his points. Witness Lee, using similar terminology, is not out of line with such teachers nor with the Bible.
In Practice, Witness Lee referenced G. H. Pember’s work The Great Prophecies, Alexander Hislop’s book The Two Babylons, and the Plymouth Brethren writers as others who hold similar views. Geisler and Rhodes hide all of these sources from their readers. While there are differing interpretations of the prophecy in Revelation 17, it is dissembling for Geisler and Rhodes to portray Witness Lee as isolated from the long line of Christian teachers with similar interpretations of Scripture in order to attack him as if he were an aberration.
Witness Lee bases his observation that the RCC is an “adulterous woman” on the apostle John’s letter to the church in Thyatira (Rev. 2:18-29), where there is such a woman named Jezebel who “calls herself a prophetess and teaches and leads My slaves astray to commit fornication and to eat idol sacrifices” (v. 20). In the Bible, God’s people are called to be a chaste bride (2 Cor. 11:2); for God’s people to engage in idol worship is called fornication and adultery (Jer. 2:11, 19-20; Num. 25:1-3). Without question the Old Testament Jezebel (1 Kings 16:31; 19:1-2; 21:23; 25-26; 2 Kings 9:7) caused Israel to incur judgment from God for these things. Revelation 2 refers to a New Testament Jezebel who is an adulterous woman. This woman’s identity, a matter Geisler and Rhodes avoid addressing, is central to interpreting the second and third chapters of Revelation and related Bible verses. Witness Lee plainly identifies this woman with the woman in Matthew 13:33 and the great harlot of Revelation 17:
The woman here is the same as the one prophesied by the Lord in Matt. 13:33. There the woman added leaven (signifying evil, heretical, and pagan things) into the fine flour (signifying Christ as the meal offering for the satisfaction of God and man). This woman is the great harlot of Rev. 17, who mixes abominations with the divine things. Jezebel, the pagan wife of Ahab, is a type of this apostate church.36
Concerning the church in Thyatira addressed in Revelation, Witness Lee considers it a prefigure to the RCC:
The Greek word means sacrifice of perfume, or unceasing sacrifice. As a sign, the church in Thyatira prefigures the Roman Catholic Church, which was fully formed as the apostate church by the establishing of the universal papal system in the latter part of the sixth century. This apostate church is full of sacrifices, as demonstrated in her continual Masses.37
Once again, Witness Lee is not alone in holding the view that the epistles to the seven churches in Revelation, although written to actual local churches in Asia Minor, depict the course of the church through its various stages from the early church (Ephesus) until the Lord’s return.38 Concerning Thyatira prefiguring the RCC, Andrew Miller stated:
In Thyatira, we have the Popery of the middle ages. Jezebel-like, practising all kinds of wickedness, and persecuting the saints of God under the disguise of religious zeal… Period—from the establishment of Popery to the Lord’s coming. It goes on to the end, but is characterized by the dark ages.39
This same view of the prophetic nature of the seven churches in general and the identity of Thyatira (Jezebel) in particular was espoused in one form or another by Lewis Sperry Chafer,40 C. I. Scofield,41 G. H. Pember,42 and Watchman Nee,43 among many others.44 Indeed, Watchman Nee said:
Here we want to note who Jezebel is. Jezebel is a woman. The woman in Revelation 17 refers to the Roman Catholic Church. In Matthew 13:13 the woman who took the leaven and hid it in three measures of meal is also the Roman Catholic Church. Naturally, therefore, the woman in Revelation 2:20 also represents the Roman Catholic Church.45
Rather than address any substantive matters of biblical interpretation, Geisler and Rhodes simply extracted fragments from Witness Lee’s teaching to inflame their readership without regard to truth.
Apostate Church
Geisler and Rhodes complain that Witness Lee is harsh and libelous when he refers to the RCC as an apostate church. However, referenced above are several noted Christian scholars who have also recognized and referred to the RCC an apostate church. Even some allies of Geisler and Rhodes hold this view.46
The three items Geisler cites as foreign elements in the RCC—hierarchy, ritual, and pagan practices—are in themselves enough to label the RCC as apostate. Geisler also criticizes many of the main teachings of the RCC as not only being unscriptural but also against the main principles of the gospel. He further contends that in practice the veneration of Mary is idolatry. If one adds all of Geisler’s complaints against the RCC together, it certainly looks like apostasy. Yet, he and Rhodes attack Witness Lee for stating the obvious, that the RCC is apostate.
As noted above, C. I. Scofield used the word apostate in describing the RCC. Ford Ottman, quoted by Lewis Sperry Chafer in his Systematic Theology,47 said of the RCC at the end times:
Such a condition shall assuredly be manifest in the apostate church just prior to the return of our Lord with the true Church. The indications are of such a character as to mark out more particularly the ecclesiastical system now known as the papal church. Romanism shall be in existence at the time, but more fearfully apostate than she has ever been. The definite marks here given are such as have in a general way characterized Romanism throughout the entire time of her history.48
Lest anyone think that it is only Christian teachers of the past who have called the RCC apostate, consider the following statement made by John MacArthur:
And perception is violated, particularly because the Catholic Church claims to be “true Christianity.” And when we reverse 450 years of history and just throw our arms around the Roman system—which I think we have to say, John, in all honesty is not a group of wayward brothers but is an apostate form of Christianity. It is a false religion. It is another religion.49
In the same panel discussion, R. C. Sproul echoed MacArthur’s sentiments, saying:
Somebody is preaching a different gospel. And when Rome condemned the Protestant declaration of justification by faith alone, I believe Rome, when placing the anathema on sola fide, placed the anathema of God upon themselves. And I agree with his [MacArthur’s] assessment, that the institution is apostate.50
[emphasis in original]
Both MacArthur and Sproul are well-known among evangelicals. For Geisler and Rhodes to single out Witness Lee’s criticism of the RCC and to ignore the chorus of evangelical voices who have likewise called the RCC apostate is yet another example of biased apologetics.
Conclusion—Geisler and Rhodes Condemn Biblical Teaching
Witness Lee has a solid scriptural basis for his statements concerning the RCC as well as the support of the strong testimony of many Christian teachers since the Reformation. Yet Geisler and Rhodes suppress these facts and characterize his biblical teaching as “harsh,” “slanderous,” and “libelous.”
Although Witness Lee did use strong and frank language in his criticism of the RCC, as does the Bible, this did not occupy a large part of his ministry, nor was it central to his message. Rather, his ministry focused on the crucial truths concerning the all-inclusive Christ as everything in God’s economy to become everything to his chosen and redeemed people to produce the church as the Body of Christ in this age and, as the ultimate consummation, the New Jerusalem in eternity, the mutual dwelling of God and man.
However, from time to time, as the need arose and as particular passages of the Bible required, Witness Lee did speak strong, frank, and healthy words concerning the condition of the RCC and its place in the revelation of the Bible. To do less would have been unfaithful. The Lord Himself often spoke frank and cutting words (for example, in Matt. 12:25-37; 16:1-12; 23:1-36). His servants cannot be asked to ignore such passages in the Bible or refrain from faithfully echoing the Lord’s assessments. Witness Lee spoke these words primarily to those within the local churches to warn them of the dangers inherent in not pursuing Christ and of practicing the church life without the reality of the living Christ. At no time were Witness Lee’s words unwarranted or inappropriate, let alone libelous or slanderous as Geisler and Rhodes state.
While Geisler and Rhodes have the liberty to disagree with Witness Lee’s interpretation of the various scriptural passages in question, they failed to address the relevant matters of truth in their critique. Instead, they employed a dishonest apologetic method, excising small snippets from Practice and arranging those “quotations” in such an inflammatory manner to incite their readers against Witness Lee and the local churches. They brandished about terms such as “slanderous” and “libelous” without supporting their charges. They obscured the fact that Witness Lee was expounding biblical prophecies and that his expositions had considerable historical precedent among respected teachers of the Bible. Some of these prophecies were uttered directly by the Lord Himself. All of them are part of the inspired Word of God. By separating Witness Lee’s commentary from the biblical passages he was commenting on, Geisler and Rhodes have deprived their readers of the opportunity to weigh the issues for themselves in light of Scripture. In effect, they have not allowed the Lord to speak to their readers through His Word and have deprived them of the chance to consider the Lord’s evaluation of the condition of His church.
Notes:
1See:
- “Harvest House Publishers, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon Campaign to Paint the Local Churches as Anti-Christian: Against Christians and Against the Faith,”
- “Harvest House Books Echo Our Criticism of Today’s Christianity,”
- “Harvest House’s Hypocrisy Concerning Our Criticism of Christianity,”
- “Harvest House Web Site Used to Scandalize Christian Readers with Out of Context Quotes of Our Writings about ‘Christianity,’” and
- “Misrepresentation in ECNR: False Allegations That We “Reject” Christians and the Christian Faith.”
2In “Response” Geisler and Rhodes contend, “One argument used by CRI is that their conclusions in favor of the LC should be believed because they have done better and more research on the topic…more does not necessarily mean better. So, we can concentrate on what really matters… However, it is clear that truth does not always reside with the persons who have read more or studied longer. Rather, it rests with those who can reason best from the evidence. Further, there is really no new evidence available since CRI did its first research…” In this way Geisler and Rhodes justify ignoring recent articles that are directly relevant tothe subject at hand. Geisler and Rhodes’ claim of superior reasoning ability is in itself unreasonable. By their own admission, Geisler and Rhodes did not consider all available evidence. Their claim that no new evidence is available is absurd; since the mid-1970s LSM has published hundreds of titles that are relevant to the subjects at hand. Furthermore, the arguments made by Geisler and Rhodes give little indication that they studied even what was then in print, including the responses made to similar criticisms. They simply repeat the same tired arguments which were long ago refuted and ignore all evidence and reasoning contrary to their predetermined conclusions. In other words, Geisler and Rhodes’ claim of superior reasoning ability and concomitant slighting of a fellow apologist have no factual basis.
3See “Misrepresenting Witness Lee’s Critique of Christianity” and “Applying a Double Standard with Regard to Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church” on this site.
4See “Misrepresenting Witness Lee’s Critique of Christianity” on this site.
5Witness Lee, The God-ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), p. 28.
6Although critical of the RCC as a system, Witness Lee positively appraised individual Catholic writers many times. He often referenced Augustine and, less frequently, Aquinas. François Fénelon and Jeanne Marie Guyon are further examples of this. Witness Lee affirmed the sound and helpful content of their writings but cautioned against other portions that promoted asceticism, the worship of Mary, burning candles to idols, etc. The booklet The Practice of the Presence of God by Herman Lawrence Nicholas, a monk known as Brother Lawrence, is well-known among the local churches. There are other examples as well.
7Far from being an admission, Witness Lee and the local churches have always affirmed that the genuine believers in all of Christianity, including Catholicism, are fellow members of the Body of Christ:
From the very beginning we realized that despite the divisions, organizations, and traditions, there were a great number of genuine Christians scattered in these divisions. We saw that the Lord’s Body comprises all these genuine believers. Even in the Catholic Church we saw a number of genuine believers, and we also considered them as members of the church and as our dear brothers and sisters. On the one hand, we began to meet by ourselves and we fully realized that the dear, genuine believers who were scattered in the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations were our brothers. We recognized them and we loved them. We realized that the Lord’s Body as the church of God did not only comprise us but also all the genuine believers, of which we were a small part. – Witness Lee, Elders’ Training, Book 4: Other Crucial Matters Concerning the Practice of the Lord’s Recovery (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1985, 1998), pp. 123-124
8John A. Saliba, “The Testimony of John Albert Saliba, Ph.D.,” The Experts Speak Concerning Witness Lee and the Local Churches (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, November 1995), p. 107. Although Saliba’s statement has been part of the public record since 1985, Geisler and Rhodes offer no indication that they are aware of it. This is yet another reason to reject their assertion that they need to perform no further research relative to the local churches.
9Ibid.
10Witness Lee, The God-ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), p. 26.
11Ibid.
12Witness Lee’s interpretation of this parable is substantially the same as that of many Bible teachers, including John Nelson Darby, Robert Govett, W. E. Vine, A.W. Pink, G. Campbell Morgan, G. H. Lang, J. J. Ross, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Herbert Lockyer, John F. Walvoord, and Ray Stedman.
13G. H. Pember, The Great Prophecies of the Centuries Concerning the Church, Vol. 4 (Miami Springs, FL: Conley & Schoettle Publishing, 1984), p. 341. In this portion, Pember refers the identity of the “birds” to the first parable in Matthew 13. In his exposition of that parable, Pember identifies the “birds” as “those fallen angels and spirits” and “those ever-watchful agents of Satan, the countless spirits of the air” (pp. 291-292). Pember’s description of the “birds” is similar to Witness Lee’s expression “Satan’s evil spirits.”
14Ibid., p. 342.
15Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 4: Christology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), p. 352. See also Herbert Lockyer, All the Parables of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1963), pp. 186-189.
16See note 12.
17Ron Rhodes, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 106; Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2000), p. 241; and Ron Rhodes, Find It Quick: Handbook on Cults & New Religions (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2005), pp. 143, 182-186; cf. p. 278, Item 87. “Unbelievers Can Be Demon Possessed.” For a fuller explanation of Rhodes’ teaching, see “Applying a Double Standard with Regard to Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church” on this site.
18Witness Lee, The God-ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), p. 26.
19See “Applying a Double Standard with Regard to Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church” on this site.
20Norman L, Geisler and Joshua M. Betancourt, Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), p. 181.
21Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), p. 322. In the next paragraph, Geisler states, “…in practice there is no real difference between the veneration given to Mary and that given to Christ.”
22Geisler and Betancourt, op. cit., p. 181.
23Ron Rhodes, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 106. These same sentences appear in Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2000), p. 241.
24Andrew Miller, Miller’s Church History: From the First to the Twentieth Century (London & Glascow: Pickering & Inglis, 1963), p. 959.
25Witness Lee, The God-ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), pp. 26-27.
26Witness Lee’s teaching on the parable of the leaven echoes that of many other respected expositors, including John Nelson Darby, Robert Govett, C. I. Scofield, W. E. Vine, G. H. Lang, A.W. Pink, G. Campbell Morgan, J. J. Ross, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Herbert Lockyer, Lehman Strauss, and John F. Walvoord. Many of these also make the association between the woman in the parable of the leaven in Matthew 13:33 and Jezebel in Revelation 2:20.
27C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 1016, note 3.
28C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 1346, note 1. “…ecclesiastical Babylon, which is apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy… Ecclesiatical Babylon is ‘the great whore’ (Rev. 17.1)…”
29C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 1331, note 3. “As Jezebel brought idolatry into Israel, so Romanism weds Christian doctrine to pagan ceremonies.”
31Norman L. Geisler & Joshua M. Betancourt, Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), p. 184:
Current Roman Catholicism in general is a combination of four factors: (1) a basic Christian doctrinal core, (2) a Roman hierarchical structure (borrowed from the dying Roman Empire), (3) a Jewish ritualistic form (borrowed from the Old Testament), and (4) significant pagan content and practices.
32See “Applying a Double Standard with Regard to Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church” on this site for a more complete explanation.
33Others who have taught that Mystery Babylon the Great in Revelation 17 refers to Roman Catholicism include William Tyndale, John Huss, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, John Wesley, John Gill, Albert Barnes, John Peter Lange, John Nelson Darby, Andrew Miller, G. H. Pember, Robert Govett, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, Charles H. Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, H. A. Ironside, C. I. Scofield, Arno C. Gaebelein, J. J. Ross, William R. Newell, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Louis Talbot, Lehman Strauss, Merrill F. Unger, John F. Walvoord, Walter Lewis Wilson, W. A. Criswell, and Donald Grey Barnhouse.
34Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume IV (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), p. 354.
35Ibid., p. 358.
36Witness Lee, Revelation 2:20, footnote 1, Holy Bible: Recovery Version (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 2003).
37Witness Lee, Revelation 2:18, footnote 1, ibid.
38Victorinus, the Catholic scholar Joachim, John Gill, Matthew Poole, John Nelson Darby, William Kelly, Andrew Miller, G. H. Pember, G. Campbell Morgan, F. W. Grant, A. B. Simpson, Joseph A. Seiss, C. I. Scofield, Arno C. Gaebelein, William R. Newell, H.A. Ironside, Louis Talbot, Ford C. Ottman, John F. Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, Lehman Strauss, Donald Grey Barnhouse, J. Vernon McGee, and W. A. Criswell, among others.
39Andrew Miller, Miller’s Church History: From the First to the Twentieth Century (London & Glascow: Pickering & Inglis, 1963), p. 5.
40Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume IV (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), p. 353.
41C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 1331, note 3.
42G. H. Pember, The Great Prophecies of the Centuries Concerning the Church, Volume 4 (Miami Springs, FL: Conley & Schoettle Publishing, 1984), pp. 494-649.
43Watchman Nee, The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Volume 47: The Orthodoxy of the Church & Authority and Submission (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1994), pp. 3-102.
44See “Biblical Critiques of Christianity – Selected Bibliography and Biographical Notes on Sources Cited.”
45The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Volume 47, op. cit., p. 45.
46See “Applying a Double Standard with Regard to Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church” on this site.
47Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. IV (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1973), p. 354.
48Ford C. Ottman, Unfolding of the Ages in the Revelation of John (New York: Baker & Taylor, 1905), p. 378. The entire text of this book is available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=YKHf8xadOpIC on Google Books.
49John MacArthur, “Do Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants Now Agree?”, Defending the Faith, Volume IV (Chattanooga, TN: Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 1995), p. 14. This article is a transcript of a panel discussion among MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, D. James Kennedy, and John Ankerberg. None of the four participants objected to this characterization of the RCC as apostate.
50R. C. Sproul, ibid., p. 16.
Applying a Double Standard with Regard to Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches
Read this document as a PDF
In “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement” (henceforth “Response”), Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes apply a double standard in making inflammatory accusations against Witness Lee based on the third chapter of his book The God-ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy (henceforth Practice).1 They condemn Witness Lee for making certain statements about the Roman Catholic Church (henceforth RCC) that are similar to statements they have made about the RCC in their own writings. Not only so, some of their allies have also made similar, and in some cases stronger, statements. Many of these accusations have been addressed previously on this site, yet Geisler and Rhodes have ignored those replies.2 Geisler and Rhodes state:
Chapter Three from a book by Witness Lee titled, The God-Ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy in which he engages in a slanderous attack on …”today’s Catholic Church.” …[Lee says that] The Roman Church is infested with “Satan’s evil spirits” and “full of all kinds of evils. Evil persons, evil practices, and evil things are lodging there.” It is an “adulterous woman who added leaven (signifying evil, heretical, and pagan things).” It is “the Mother of the Prostitutes” and an “apostate church.” Again, it is “full of idolatry,” “against God’s economy,” and “saturated with demonic and satanic things.” If ever there were grounds for religious libel, this would be it.3
The subject matter to which Geisler and Rhodes so strongly object consists primarily of a few words and short phrases stripped from the context of Practice.4 They combined these selected phrases with their running editorial comments to present an extremely sensationalized, unbalanced, and inaccurate view of Witness Lee’s teaching. Furthermore, it is evident that their criticism is an exercise in hypocrisy in light of:
Not only have Geisler and Rhodes treated Witness Lee’s words unfairly by cobbling together a series of out-of-context fragments, but on the basic issue of criticism of the RCC, they have applied a blatant double standard.
The Historic Protestant Position on Roman Catholicism
Witness Lee’s criticism of the RCC is often much less harsh than the criticism of Protestant teachers from the Reformation until the present time.5 One of the earliest writings of Martin Luther after he took a stand against the RCC was the treatise “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.” The title alone equates the RCC with Babylon, an idea that Geisler and Rhodes apparently reject as harsh, regrettable, and slanderous. In this treatise, Luther says:
But after hearing and reading the super-subtle subtleties of these coxcombs, with which they so adroitly prop up their idol (for my mind is not altogether unteachable in these matters), I now know for certain that the papacy is the kingdom of Babylon and the power of Nimrod…6
Luther purposely used “coxcombs” as a derogatory term to portray his opponents as those who pretended to rank and authority. The “idol” Luther referred to was the Pope himself. Here, and in many other places, Luther’s criticism of the RCC was much stronger than Witness Lee’s. Luther said that if the Antichrist himself were pope, he could add nothing to Rome’s wickedness, stated that the RCC was “a licentious den of thieves … the most shameful of all brothels” and surmised that the RCC deserved to have Satan as its pope.7 Luther was not alone in speaking so strongly. Luther was joined by John Calvin, John Knox, and John Wesley.8 Yet Geisler and Rhodes have not attacked these teachers as slanderous and libelous. In fact, Rhodes uses Luther and his criticism of the RCC as a positive example to rouse today’s believers to stand up for the truth of the gospel:
As Christians, we are called to contend for the faith by “telling it like it is.” Look at it this way: Would we have had a Reformation if Martin Luther hadn’t told it like it was to the Roman Catholic church? No, we wouldn’t. Luther saw a deviation from “the faith” and he accordingly contended for the faith. We must follow Luther’s example.9
If Geisler and Rhodes truly object to the statements they listed and portrayed as slanderous, they have no choice but to similarly condemn Luther, other Reformers, and the many Christian teachers who came after them who were also highly critical of the RCC.10 Rather than condemnation, Rhodes offers praise for Luther’s stand against the RCC, however “harsh and regrettable” his language may have been.
What Witness Lee wrote in Practice is much more in line with the traditional Protestant position concerning the RCC than are the protests of Geisler and Rhodes. In fact, Witness Lee’s words pale in comparison to those of many other respected Christian teachers.
Ron Rhodes Criticizes Catholicism for Occult Involvement
Although “Response” vehemently attacks Witness Lee’s words concerning the RCC, its authors have written similar criticisms. In The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic, Ron Rhodes equated the RCC teaching of purgatory and its practical effect on Catholics with the occult, with apparitions, and with spiritism. Speaking of this matter Rhodes says:
Researchers John Ankerberg and John Weldon have noted an occult connection to the doctrine of purgatory. They observe that throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church there have been widespread reports of apparitions alleged to be those of dead persons…11
After quoting Ankerberg and Weldon, Rhodes concludes:
This is nothing less than spiritism. And all forms of spiritism are condemned by God as heinous sin.12
In Find It Quick: Handbook on Cults & New Religions, Rhodes explains the evils he attributes to spiritism. He again defines spiritism as “heinous sin” and further as the equivalent of channeling, an occult practice, which he describes as an attempt to communicate with “allegedly departed human beings” or “other non-human spiritual entities.” He then concludes that one of the dangers of spiritism is demon possession.13 Rhodes states that one of the main features of occult practices is that:
…they place people in contact with supernatural powers, paranormal entities, or demonic forces… Occultism takes many forms but often includes such practices as trance states, séances, clairvoyance, spiritism (also called channeling)…14
Rhodes acknowledges that Catholic apparitions are a form of spirit contact. He further points out that spiritism can result in demon possession. To Rhodes, therefore, the “spiritual entities” contacted through apparitions (spiritism) are, in fact, evil spirits or demons. Rhodes associates all these things with the RCC: apparitions, spiritism, the occult, evil spirits, demons, and demon possession. Yet, Rhodes and Geisler object when Witness Lee speaks of the RCC being associated with “Satan’s evil spirits” and being “saturated with demonic and satanic things.” Apparently this is an acceptable criticism of the RCC when it is made by Rhodes but not when it is made by Witness Lee, even though Witness Lee’s criticism is based entirely on the Bible,15 while Rhodes’ critique relies primarily on other sources.
Geisler Criticizes Catholicism for Heresy, Idolatry, and Mixture
In an article posted on the John Ankerberg website and excerpted from Geisler’s book When Cultists Ask, Geisler comments on the RCC veneration of Mary. He says:
In addition, bowing down in veneration before any creature, even angels (cf. Col. 2:18; Rev. 22:8-9), is forbidden in Scripture. The Bible makes it clear that we are not to make any “images” of any creature or even to “bow down” to them in an act of religious devotion (Exod. 20:4-5). To call Mary “Queen of Heaven,” knowing that this phrase was borrowed directly from an old pagan idolatrous cult condemned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 7:18), only invites the charge of mariolatry. And mariolatry is idolatry. In addition, despite theological distinctions to the contrary, in practice many Catholics do not distinguish between the veneration given to Mary and that given to Christ.16
In this portion, Geisler associates idolatry and idols with the RCC. He accuses the RCC of adopting an “old pagan idolatrous cult” practice that has been “forbidden in Scripture.” He indicates that in practice the veneration of Mary in the RCC is the worship of something or someone other than God and amounts to “idolatry.” Yet, Geisler and Rhodes condemn Witness Lee’s use of similar terms.
In answering the question of whether or not the RCC is a false church, Geisler wrote, somewhat equivocally:
But is the Roman Catholic Church a false church? If Rome is judged by the standard of the fourteen (or sixteen) salvation essentials embodied in the creeds of the first five centuries, the answer is no. In this case, Rome is a true church with significant error. If judged by the standards of the Protestant Reformation, however, the answer is yes. In this case, Rome is a false church with significant truth.17
One is left to wonder both how Geisler would answer this question for himself and what would be his answer if the standard was the Bible rather than the creeds. Unable or unwilling to answer this question unequivocally, Geisler18 further states, “Therefore, Rome has ‘practical heresy’ if not both practical and doctrinal heresy.”19 Finally, Geisler concludes:
Current Roman Catholicism in general is a combination of four factors: (1) a basic Christian doctrinal core, (2) a Roman hierarchical structure (borrowed from the dying Roman Empire), (3) a Jewish ritualistic form (borrowed from the Old Testament), and (4) significant pagan content and practices. Depending on the time and place, one or more of these factors may dominate. Thus, depending on the critic’s focus, one may get widely divergent conclusions about Roman Catholicism ranging from Christian to cult. To borrow the title of Jaroslav Pelikan’s excellent tome, this is “the riddle of Roman Catholicism.”20
Geisler’s four factors that constitute the RCC bring to mind Witness Lee’s teaching that the RCC is typified by the woman who mixes leaven with the fine flour in Matthew 13:33. The fine flour in the parable represents the person and work of Christ, which roughly corresponds to Geisler’s first point, the basic truths of the faith. The leaven that the woman mixed with the fine flour would be represented by Geisler’s other three points: hierarchy, ritual, and pagan things. Geisler described the RCC as a combination of these four elements, which implies a mixture. The meal offering, indicated by the fine flour in the parable, should consist of fine flour without any mixture of corrupting elements (Lev. 2:4-5, 11). In his description of the RCC, Geisler admits that it is a mixture of the things of God and three corrupting elements. In effect, he is saying that while the church should be pure and consist of Christ and the things of God, the RCC has mixed in corruption, or leaven, in the form of hierarchy, ritual, and paganism. Thus, according to Geisler, the RCC is an impure mixture incorporating even pagan things. Yet, in “Response” Geisler and Rhodes strongly attack Witness Lee for saying that the RCC is the “woman who added leaven (signifying evil, heretical, and pagan things),” even though Geisler’s own teaching supports Witness Lee’s point.
In other writings Geisler attacks the RCC concerning its errant teachings and practices: Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix, the immaculate conception of Mary, the assumption of Mary, the mass, the Eucharist, the Apocrypha, justification by works, the Magisterium, and papal infallibility among others.21 He also is critical of evangelicals such as Charles Colson, J. I. Packer, and others who issued a joint statement of cooperation with Catholics.22 Considering the seriousness of the claims he makes against the RCC, the real remaining “riddle” is that Geisler, along with Rhodes, so vociferously protests Witness Lee’s teachings about the RCC. It seems Geisler and Rhodes maintain that criticisms that are appropriate for them to levy against the RCC are not appropriate for Witness Lee to make. This is a flagrant double standard.
Geisler and Rhodes’ Allies Vehemently Attack Catholicism
Both Geisler and Rhodes are allied with Harvest House Publishers and John Ankerberg. Geisler authored an amicus brief on their behalf during the litigation concerning Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR), and Rhodes signed another amicus in the case. Geisler was listed as one of John Ankerberg’s consulting experts in the case, and Ankerberg depended on Geisler for his opinion concerning proposed changes to ECNR. Geisler has been a frequent guest on the John Ankerberg Show and has authored numerous articles posted on the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute (ATRI) website. As pointed out previously, the attack by Geisler and Rhodes on the third chapter of Practice is similar enough to the attack on the same chapter on the Harvest House website to suggest collusion between the two parties. Geisler and Rhodes have published numerous books with Harvest House.
Both Geisler and Rhodes were also signers of the so-called open letter calling for a disavowal of statements made by Witness Lee, which, according to one of the signers of that document, was written in large part to support Harvest House and its authors in the ECNR litigation. Like “Response,” much of the content of the open letter is very similar to that of corporate statements posted by Harvest House on its website.
It is, therefore, both appropriate and instructive to examine what Geisler and Rhodes’ allies have written about the RCC, not necessarily to criticize any of the named authors or to either challenge or endorse their statements. Rather, this is done to illustrate further the double standard employed by Geisler and Rhodes in their attack on Witness Lee and his teaching.
John Ankerberg and John Weldon
Ankerberg and his former long-time researcher John Weldon published many statements stridently criticizing the RCC and accusing it of occult involvement. Without equivocation, they take the position that the RCC is not merely an errant Christian religion; it is simply not a Christian religion:
Now consider Roman Catholicism. The fact that it accepts many Christian doctrines is irrelevant. That it teaches salvation by works proves that it is not a Christian religion.23
So how do we finally assess Roman Catholicism? We can only evaluate it by the Bible and Rome’s own claims. In such light then should Roman Catholicism really be classified as the one true Church? Should it even be classified as Christian? No. Roman Catholicism is not the true Church and it is not even a Christian religion.24
Following a testimony of Weldon’s own experience as a Catholic, Ankerberg and Weldon conclude:
…[S]uch stories are anything but uncommon. But if so, the Catholic Church must be seen as a genuine hindrance to the cause of Christ.25
In The Coming Darkness, Ankerberg and Weldon accuse the RCC of the darkest, most demonic activities. For example:
There are also reported cases in Catholic monasteries. Dr. Vallee observes that “the most remarkable cases of sexual contact with nonhumans are … in the archives of the Catholic Church” and he proceeds to list examples. Given the claims that (according to Investigative Reports TV series “Sins of the Fathers”) widespread homosexuality and, to a much lesser degree, pedophilia exist in some Catholic seminaries and among priests today (25 to 50 percent of priests were estimated to be homosexually inclined), one can only wonder if this phenomena has already returned. There are also cases of sex with alleged UFO occupants (e.g., the Villa Boas, Shane Kurz, and Cordelia Donavan incidents), which essentially parallel the incubi-succubae.26
It is painful to include such topics in this article, and it should be noted that Witness Lee’s biblical criticisms of the RCC using scriptural expressions cannot be compared with this level of ignobility and sensationalism.
Authors on the ATRI Website
The ATRI website has a major category of articles dedicated to addressing errors and issues related to the RCC. The current index page27 on Roman Catholicism on johnankerberg.org lists articles by John Ankerberg and John Weldon,28 Mike Gendron, James McCarthy, Greg Durel, and others. One article by Gendron, an ex-Catholic, entitled “Roman Catholicism—Apostolic or Apostate?” concludes in this way:
Is the Roman Catholic Church guilty of apostasy? The evidence is overwhelming. The truth must be told in love with courage and conviction. The eternal destiny of millions of precious souls hangs in the balance. The Catholic Church has fallen away from the faith of the apostles and gone the way of apostates.29
Gendron, on the ATRI site, states clearly that he considers the RCC to be apostate. Geisler and Rhodes claim that when Witness Lee describes the RCC as an “apostate church,” he is guilty of slander and religious libel. Gendron also has articles on the ATRI site addressing various aspects of the RCC entitled “Beware of Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing,” “Is a Catholic Christian an Oxymoron?” “Roman Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses,” and “Eucharist Adoration: Worship or Idolatry?” among others.
After describing at length the strong rebukes the Lord Jesus had for the Jewish religious system of His time (described on the ATRI Roman Catholicism Index page as “scathing criticism”) and comparing that system to the RCC, McCarthy says:
Jesus rejected the man-made authority structure of the first century Jews. He refused to submit to Tradition, the teaching authority of the scribes and the Pharisees, or the ruling authority of the Sanhedrin they represented. What Jesus rejected, the Roman Catholic Church has now restored. It has elevated Tradition to the same level of authority as God’s inspired Scriptures. Its pope and bishops have laid claim to universal jurisdiction and sole teaching authority.30
It is clear from this article that McCarthy postulates that the Lord’s strong rebuke, characterized by ATRI as “scathing criticism,” of the Pharisees and Sadducees could also be applied to today’s RCC.
Greg Durel, who also writes articles for Reaching Catholics for Christ, has articles on the ATRI site addressing the shortcomings of the RCC. In the introductory paragraph of the article “Signs of a Cult,” Durel first states that there are seven principle signs for identifying a cult. In the article he says, “But for our discussion the word cult is simply a word that describes organized heresy.” Concerning the RCC, Durel concludes:
The mysticism is clearly not biblical and certainly not necessary for anyone to be saved. Their insistence on such heresies places them at the top of the list of religious cults. That statement may seem a bit harsh, but it is nonetheless true. Catholicism does not differ from any of the cults where our first sign [exclusivity] is concerned. A closer look at the other signs of a cult further confirm the fact that Catholicism, while large in number, humanitarian in practice, is still unbiblical and perhaps the mother of all “Christian” cults.31
Durel contends that its heresies place the RCC “at the top of the list of religious cults” and suggests that the RCC may be “the mother of all ‘Christian’ cults.” Although he says this may seem harsh to some, his defense of his harsh statement is that it is true. Certainly truth should be the determining factor in judging statements about the RCC. Durel’s language resembles that of Geisler when he commented (as noted above) that according to some evaluations the RCC may be seen as a cult.
Norman Geisler is a long-time associate of John Ankerberg and has appeared numerous times on The John Ankerberg Show. He has never condemned Ankerberg and Weldon for criticizing Roman Catholicism, although he has publicly castigated Witness Lee for doing so. Geisler clearly has one standard for his language and that of his allies but quite another standard for Witness Lee.
Harvest House Publishers
Many of the quotations used above to demonstrate the charges against the RCC made by Rhodes, Ankerberg, and Weldon were taken from books published by Harvest House.32 The quote from James McCarthy taken from the ATRI site is adapted from a book also published by Harvest House. It seems that Geisler and Rhodes’ publisher has no qualms publishing criticisms of the RCC.
For example, Harvest House published Dave Hunt’s A Woman Rides the Beast. On the front cover of the book is a portion of Revelation 17:7 (“I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast…”) and a proclamation that the book is about “the Roman Catholic Church and the last days.” The back cover blurb reads, in part:
Who is this woman? Tradition says she is connected with the church of Rome. But isn’t such a view outdated? After all, today’s Vatican is eager to join hands with Protestants worldwide. “The Catholic Church has changed,” is what we hear. Or has it? In A Woman Rides the Beast, prophecy expert Dave Hunt sifts through biblical truth and global events to present a well-defined portrait of the woman and her powerful place in the Antichrist’s future empire. Eight remarkable clues in Revelation 17 and 18 prove the woman’s identity beyond any reasonable doubt.33
Both the front and back covers would have been developed by Harvest House Publishers with the author’s approval.
Hunt believes the RCC is the Babylon of Revelation and that she is the harlot, the whore of Babylon. Starting on page 68 there is a section titled “Who Is the Whore?” followed by a section beginning on page 77 titled “The Mother of Harlots and Abominations.” Hunt states, “Against only one other city in history could a charge of fornication be leveled. That city is Rome, and more specifically Vatican City” (emphasis in original).34 In speaking of the popes of history, Hunt describes many of them as “master criminals, poisoners, adulterers, and mass murderers” who were nevertheless considered “infallible when they spoke ex cathedra” about faith and morality. Their lives were full of “lust, madness, mayhem, and murder.”35 This list of blatant evils pales in comparison to Hunt’s association of the RCC with Hitler, Mussolini, the Holocaust, and Nazi atrocities.
In another Harvest House book by Dave Hunt, Occult Invasion, one finds such statements as “…millions … refused allegiance to the Church of Rome because of its pagan/occult practices and apostasy” in a chapter titled “Occultism and the Roman Catholic Church.”36 Hunt further associates the RCC with voodoo:
Images, holy water, and Catholic rituals cannot be found in the Bible, but have all been adapted from paganism. Their counterpart is found today in voodoo and related cults.37
In the same chapter Hunt associates the RCC with Santeria, “…’gods’ who front for demons passed off as Catholic saints,”38 “superstition and occultism,”39 and shamanism.40 This is a small sampling of statements from this chapter that characterize the RCC as something exceedingly evil.
Hunt’s statements in A Woman Rides the Beast and Occult Invasion, both published by Harvest House, are far more inflammatory than any of the statements made by Witness Lee that apparently stirred Geisler and Rhodes into charging him with slander and religious libel. Once again, Geisler and Rhodes employ a different standard to judge Witness Lee than they apply to themselves or their allies.
Geisler and Rhodes Apply a Hypocritical Double Standard
In examining the statements that Geisler, Rhodes, and some of their allies have written about the RCC and comparing them to sentence fragments excerpted from Practice, it becomes evident that there is a double standard at work in Geisler and Rhodes’ assessment. Witness Lee’s criticisms of the RCC are, in many cases, milder than the criticisms of Luther, Calvin, and others. Yet, Geisler and Rhodes choose to attack Witness Lee and to champion others who have said similar things.
Rhodes, in his writings, linked the RCC with apparitions, spiritism, occult practices, evil spirits, demons, and demon possession. He characterizes all these as “heinous sin,” which indeed they are. Yet, he and co-author Geisler apparently bristle at Witness Lee’s biblical critique.
Geisler linked the RCC to many evils. He wrote that in the RCC Mariolatry and idolatry are, at the very least, practical heresy, could be theological heresy, and amount to worship of someone other than God. Geisler has rightly pointed out that the term “Queen of Heaven,” used by the RCC in relation to Mary, was taken from ancient pagan practices and is condemned by the Bible. Geisler stated that, depending on what standard one uses, the RCC may be either a true or a false church and that at certain times, under certain circumstances, those who examine the RCC could conclude that it is anywhere from a Christian church to a cult. He admits that three of the four main components of the RCC are ritual, hierarchy, and pagan teachings and practices. Yet Geisler, with his co-author Rhodes, affects outrage at similar statements by Witness Lee. Geisler’s four points about the constituents of the RCC actually support Witness Lee’s teaching about the woman who mixes leaven with the fine flour in Matthew 13:33. Yet Geisler and Rhodes attack Witness Lee for applying the language of this parable to the RCC, ignoring the many respected expositors through history who did the same.
Additionally, allies of Geisler and Rhodes—John Ankerberg, Harvest House Publishers, and other authors on the ATRI website—write and publish very harsh criticisms of the RCC. In many cases, they say things that could be characterized as strong, harsh, and extremely offensive. Ankerberg flatly denies that the RCC is a Christian church or even a Christian religion and sees it as full of heresy and a hindrance to the gospel and the cause of Christ. He also associates the RCC with gross, demonic immoralities. Other authors on his website say, “the Catholic Church has … gone the way of the apostates,” “what Jesus rejected, the Roman Catholic Church has now restored,” “their insistence on such heresies places them at the top of the list of religious cults,” the RCC may be “the mother of all “Christian” cults,” and other such statements.
Harvest House has published many of the statements about the RCC made by Geisler, Rhodes, and Ankerberg, as well as others who post on ATRI’s site. They have additionally published A Woman Rides the Beast by Dave Hunt, a scathing, no-holds-barred attack on the RCC, and Occult Invasion, also by Hunt, a book that associates the RCC with many satanic evils.
Apparently, all of these criticisms are acceptable to Geisler and Rhodes. It is only when Witness Lee criticizes the RCC that they cry, “Slander! Religious libel!” These examples demonstrate the double standard applied to the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches by Geisler and Rhodes.
Notes:
1Witness Lee, The God-ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1987).
2The very same chapter, chosen from among thousands of chapters in hundreds of books by Witness Lee, was the subject of very similar attacks on the Harvest House Publishers corporate website. Geisler aided in the defense of a book published by Harvest House and authored by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, so he should have been aware of both Harvest House’s criticisms and of the following articles published on this site:
- “Harvest House Publishers, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon Campaign to Paint the Local Churches as Anti-Christian: Against Christians and Against the Faith,”
- “Harvest House Books Echo Our Criticism of Today’s Christianity,”
- “Harvest House’s Hypocrisy Concerning Our Criticism of Christianity,”
- “Harvest House Web Site Used to Scandalize Christian Readers with Out of Context Quotes of Our Writings about ‘Christianity,’” and
- “Misrepresentation in ECNR: False Allegations That We “Reject” Christians and the Christian Faith.”
Geisler and Rhodes ignored these responses and simply strung together fragments of Witness Lee’s writing to create the desired impression in much the same way Harvest House did.
3The mere fact that Witness Lee made strong and critical statements about the RCC does not support Geisler and Rhodes’ contention of slander and libel. As is often stated, “Truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel.” In other words, if statements are true, they are not slanderous or libelous. Since Geisler and Rhodes couched their criticism of Witness Lee with accusations of slander and libel, it was incumbent upon them to challenge the truth of his statements. This they did not do. Rather, “Response” consists of bare accusation and sensationalism.
4For a detailed explanation of the mishandling of excerpted quotes, see: “Misrepresenting Witness Lee and Defending the Roman Catholic Church.”
5This matter will be touched briefly in this article. For a more complete presentation, please refer to “Biblical Critiques of Christianity – Selected Bibliography and Biographical Notes on Sources Cited.”
6Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” Three Treatises (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957), p. 124.
7Martin Luther, “The Freedom of a Christian,” Three Treatises (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957), p. 268-269.
8See, for example: Martin Luther, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation” and “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” Three Treatises (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957), p. 124 among many other references; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 314-315; John Calvin, Calvin: Theological Treatises, edited by J. K. S. Reid (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), pp. 90-91; John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Volume 1, trans. by William Pringle (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1981), John 8:43-45; John Knox, “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women,” Selected Writings of John Knox: Public Epistles, Treatises, and Expositions to the Year 1559 (Dallas, TX: Kevin Reed, Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1995) available at: www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm; John Wesley, “Revelation 17,” John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/wes/revelation/17.htm.
9Ron Rhodes, The Culting of America (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994), p. 221.
10See, for example: Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 813, 817, 822, 832; John Owen, “Sermon XV. The chamber of imagery in the church of Rome laid open,” The Sermons of John Owen, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/sermons.ii.xv.ii.html; Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964), p. 459; C. H. Mackintosh, The Mackintosh Treasury (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1976), p. 814; F. B. Meyer, Great Verses through the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1977), pp. 467-468; H.A. Ironside, Lectures on the Revelation (Neptune: Loizeaux Brothers, 1920, 1973), pp. 55-56, 57, 299, 305-306; Donald Grey Barnhouse, Revelation: God’s Last Word. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971, 1982), pp. 324-35; John Nelson Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Volume V: Colossians—The Revelation (Kingston-on-Thames: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, 1965), p. 412; W.A. Criswell, Expository Sermons on Revelation: Volume 4—Revelation 11 through 17 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962, 1980), pp. 182, 186; Charles H. Spurgeon, Spurgeon’s Devotional Bible (Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Book House, 1964, 1975), pp. 769, 770, 771; and John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), pp. 245-246. See “Biblical Critiques of Christianity – Selected Bibliography and Biographical Notes on Sources Cited.”
11Ron Rhodes, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 106. These same sentences appear in Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2000), p. 241.
12Ibid.
13Ron Rhodes, Find It Quick: Handbook on Cults & New Religions (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2005), pp. 182-186. cf. p. 278, Item 87, “Unbelievers Can Be Demon Possessed.”
14Ibid., p. 143.
15See: “Misrepresenting Witness Lee and Defending the Roman Catholic Church.” This article demonstrates that many respected Christian teachers held interpretations concerning certain key parables and prophecies similar to those expounded by Witness Lee.
16Norman Geisler, excerpted from When Cultists Ask (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997). “Mary—Fully Human, or Nearly Divine?” www.ankerberg.com/Articles/PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD4W1299.pdf.
17Norman Geisler and Joshua M. Betancourt, Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), p. 180.
18Geisler’s equivocation concerning the RCC may be due to sympathies formed during his study at Loyola of Chicago, a Jesuit institution.
19Geisler and Betancourt, op. cit., p 181.
20Ibid., p. 185.
21For examples see:
- Norman Geisler and Joshua M. Betancourt, Is Rome the TrueChurch? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008).
- Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995).
- Norman Geisler, “Mary — Fully Human or Nearly Divine?” Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 1999 (www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD4W1299.pdf).
- Norman Geisler, “The Apocrypha: Parts 1—4,” Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 2002
22Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), critiques cooperative efforts between Catholics and Protestants and “addresses the issue of whether cooperation or conflict should characterize these unions” (p. 15). It contends that “…there is no hope for ecclesiastic union with Catholicism.” It contains criticism of the endorsers of the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (“ECT”) statement drafted by Charles Colson and Kent Hill (then President of Eastern Nazarene College), among others. Its evangelical participants and endorsers included Os Guinness, Richard Land, Richard Mouw, Mark Noll, Jesse Miranda, Pat Robertson, and Thomas Oden. Geisler’s book is also critical of Michael Horton and J. I. Packer for diluting statements originally made in a response to “ECT.”
23John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), p. 219.
24Ibid., p. 212.
25Ibid., p. 195.
26John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Coming Darkness (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), pp. 196-197.
27As of June, 2010. See www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/archives-rc.htm.
28Some of the article titles attributed to Ankerberg and Weldon in the Roman Catholicism Index of the ATRI site are: “Catholic and Occult View of Mary,” “What about Marian Apparitions?,” “What is the Unique Role of Mary in Roman Catholicism and Is It Biblical?,” “Is the Pope Infallible in Matters of Doctrine and Morals?,” and “A Catholic is a Catholic is a Catholic.”
29Gendron, Mike, “Roman Catholicism—Apostolic or Apostate?” (Chattanooga, TN: ATRI, Not Dated), p 3. www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC2W1199.pdf.
30James McCarthy, “Roman Catholic Authority” (Chattanooga, TN: ATRI, Not Dated), p 2. www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC1W0899.pdf. Adapted from McCarthy, James, The Gospel According to Rome (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995).
31Greg Durel, “The Signs of a Cult” (Chattanooga, TN: ATRI, Not Dated), p. 2, www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC4W0899.pdf.
32Ironically, as Harvest House’s contract copy editor for Ankerberg and Weldon’s Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions attested, statements critical of the RCC were removed from that book in order to broaden its marketability.
33Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994), back cover.
34Ibid., p 69.
35Ibid., p 91.
36Dave Hunt, Occult Invasion (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), p 407.
37Ibid., p 411.
38Ibid., p 412.
39Ibid., p 415.
40Ibid., p 41.
Biblical Critiques of Christianity—Selected Bibliography and Biographical Notes
A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches
Read this document as a PDF
Please note the diversity of sources, affiliations, and theological leanings represented in this bibliography. This raises the question of why Witness Lee and the local churches were singled out as the target of attack by Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes. This list is by no means exhaustive. However, the teachings of those listed here form the heritage of most mainstream Protestant traditions.
Bibliography on the parable of the mustard seed
Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Systematic Theology, Volume V: Christology. (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 352.
Darby, John Nelson, “Lectures on the Second Coming of Christ,” The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 11, Prophetic No. 4, ed. by William Kelly (Winschoten, Netherlands: H. L. Heijkoop, 1972), 283.
Darby, John Nelson, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Volume III: Matthew—John (Lancing, England: Kingston Bible Trust, 1965), 72.
Govett, Robert, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed Explained,” in Govett on the Parables (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing, 1989).
Lang, G. H., Pictures and Parables: Studies in the Parabolic Teaching of Holy Scripture (Miami Springs, FL: Conley & Schoettle, 1985), 87-92.
Lockyer, Herbert, All the Parables of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1963), 185-189.
Morgan, G. Campbell, The Parables and Metaphors of Our Lord (New York: Revell, 1943), 54-59.
Morgan, G. Campbell, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907), 81-93.
Pink, A. W., “The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” from The Prophetic Parables of Matthew 13, http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Parables/parables_03.htm.
Pink, A.W., The Redeemer’s Return (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1918), 136-137.
Ross, J. J., The Kingdom in Mystery (New York: Revell, 1920), 99-132.
Stedman, Ray, “The Case of the Ambitious Seed,” http://www.raystedman.org/new-testament/matthew/the-case-of-the-ambitious-seed.
Vine, W. E., Expository Dictionary of the New Testament (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing, 1985), 777.
Walvoord, John F., Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1974), 101-102.
Bibliography on the parable of the woman, the leaven, and the fine flour:
Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Systematic Theology, Volume V: Christology. (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 352-353.
Darby, John Nelson, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Volume III: Matthew—John (Lancing, England: Kingston Bible Trust, 1965), 72-73.
Govett, Robert, “The Parable of the Leaven Explained,” 3rd edition, in Govett on the Parables (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing, 1989).
Lang, G. H., Pictures and Parables (Miami Springs, FL: Conley & Schoettle, 1985), 93-109.
Lockyer, Herbert, All the Parables of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1963), 190-197.
Morgan, G. Campbell, The Parables and Metaphors of Our Lord (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1943), 59-65.
Morgan, G. Campbell, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907), 97-110.
Pink, A. W., “The Parable of the Leaven,” from The Prophetic Parables of Matthew 13, http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Parables/parables_04.htm.
Pink, A.W., The Redeemer’s Return (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1918), 139-140.
Ross, J. J., The Kingdom in Mystery (New York: Revell, 1920), 135-171.
Scofield, C. I., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909, 1945), 1016.
Strauss, Lehmann, The Book of the Revelation (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1964), 64-68.
Vine, W. E., Expository Dictionary of the New Testament (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing, 1985), 667-668.
Walvoord, John F., Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1974), 102-105.
Bibliography on the prophetic identities of Thyatira and Jezebel
Barnhouse, Donald Grey, Revelation: God’s Last Word. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971, 1982), 57-64.
Criswell, W. A., Expository Sermons on Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 144-147.
Darby, John Nelson, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Volume V: Colossians—The Revelation (Kingston-on-Thames: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, 1965), 382.
Gaebelein, Arno C., The Revelation: An Analysis and Exposition of the Last Book of the Bible (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1915), 38-39.
Gill, John, Exposition of the Entire Bible,originally published in 1748, available online at: http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/revelation/gill/revelation2.htm.
Kelly, William, Lectures Introductory to the Study of The Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation (Sunbury, PA: Believers Bookshelf, 1869, 1970), 423-424.
Newell, William R., The Book of the Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1935, 1981), 53-61.
Poole, Matthew, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing, 1985), 955-956.
Scofield, C. I., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909, 1945), 1332.
Seiss, Joseph A., The Apocalypse: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1987), 83.
Strauss, Lehmann, The Book of the Revelation (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1964), 64-68.
Talbot, Louis, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946), 50-53.
Bibliography on the prophetic identity of Babylon the Great
Alford, Henry, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Volume 4, Part 2—James to Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 705.
Barnes, Albert, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament: Revelation (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1847, 2005), 381, 384-385.
Barnhouse, Donald Grey, Revelation: God’s Last Word. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971, 1982), 319-325.
Carroll, B. H., An Interpretation of the English Bible: Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1948), 192, 198.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Systematic Theology, Volume VII: Doctrinal Summarization. (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 31.
Clarke, Adam, The Adam Clarke Commentary, http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=017.
Coates, C. A., An Outline of the Revelation (Kingston-on-Thames, Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, n.d.), 179-187.
Coffman, James Burton, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=017.
Criswell, W.A., Expository Sermons on Revelation: Volume 4—Revelation 11 through 17 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962, 1980), 180-189.
Darby, John Nelson, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Volume V: Colossians—The Revelation (Kingston-on-Thames: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, 1965), 412-413.
Gaebelein, Arno C., The Revelation: An Analysis and Exposition of the Last Book of the Bible (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1915), 97-103.
Gill, John, Exposition of the Entire Bible, http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/revelation/gill/revelation17.htm.
Govett, Robert, “The Parable of the Leaven Explained,” 3rd edition, in Govett on the Parables (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing, 1989), 15-17.
Govett, Robert, Govett on Revelation, Volume II:4 (Miami Springs, FL: Conley & Schoettle, 1981), 25-51.
Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, Vol. III(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 825-836.
Ironside H.A., Lectures on the Revelation (Neptune: Loizeaux Brothers, 1920, 1973), 55-57, 299-317.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Bible Commentary, Volume 3: Matthew—Revelation (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002), 709.
Kelly, William, Lectures Introductory to the Study of The Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation (Sunbury, PA: Believers Bookshelf, 1869, 1970), 524-531.
Lang, G. H., The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Miami Springs, FL: Conley & Schoettle, 1985), 277-285.
Lange, John Peter, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1960), 304-309.
Larkin, Clarence, The Book of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Clarence Larkin Estate, 1919), 150-153.
Miller, Andrew, Miller’s Church History (London-Glascow: Pickering & Inglis, 1977), 422-425.
Newell, William R., The Book of the Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1935, 1981), 263-280.
Pember, G. H., The Great Prophecies of the Centuries Concerning the Church (Miami Springs: Conley & Schoettle Publishing Co., Inc., 1909, 1984), 360.
Poole, Matthew, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Volume III: Matthew-Revelation (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing, 1985), 994-995.
Ross, J. J., The Kingdom in Mystery (New York: Revell, 1920), 162-171.
Scofield, C. I., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909, 1945), 909, 1346-1347.
Spurgeon, Charles H., Spurgeon’s Devotional Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1964, 1975), 768-771.
Strauss, Lehmann, The Book of the Revelation (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1964), 67-68, 291-299.
Talbot, Louis, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946), 199-218.
Unger, Merrill F., Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1957, 1982), 116.
Walvoord, John F., The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 243-249.
Wesley, John, Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible – Revelation 17, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/wes/revelation/17.htm.
Wilson, Walter Lewis, Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957, 1979), 241.
Biographical Notes on Sources Cited
Alford, Henry (1810-1871) – Became vicar of Wymeswold, Leicestershire, 1835, minister of Quebec Chapel, Marylebone, London, in 1853, and dean of Canterbury in 1857; best known for his Greek Testament (4 vol., London, 1849-61 and The New Testament for English Readers (4 vol., 1868).
Barnes, Albert (1798-1870) – Graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary; pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia for 37 years; his commentaries on the New Testament have sold over two million copies.
Barnhouse, Donald Grey (1895-1960) – Pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, PA beginning 1927; broadcast “The Bible Study Hour”; founded Eternity magazine in 1931 and acted as editor-in-chief; mentor of Walter Martin.
Brown, David (1803-1897) – Minister in the Free Church of Scotland; professor of apologetics, church history, and exegesis of the Gospels and later principal at the Free Church College, Aberdeen, Scotland; director of National Bible Society of Scotland; co-founder of the Evangelical Alliance; collaborated with Robert Jamieson and A. R. Fausset on a Commentary on the Old and New Testaments.
Carroll, B. H. (1843-1914) – Founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; authored a seventeen-volume commentary entitled An Interpretation of the English Bible; president of the board of trustees of Baylor University for over twenty years; founding member of the Baptist General Convention of Texas.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry (1871-1952) – Theologian and author; founder, first president, and Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary; pastor of First Congregational Church of Dallas; aided C. I. Scofield in establishment of Philadelphia School of the Bible; general secretary of the Central American Mission.
Clarke, Adam (1760 or 1762-1832) – British Methodist theologian and Biblical scholar; over a span of 40 years wrote a commentary on the Bible that became a basic reference work for Methodist theology.
Coates, C. A. (1862-1945) – Leader and author among the Plymouth Brethren; his expositions on the Song of Songs and on the compound ointment in Exodus 30 are particularly significant.
Coffman, James Burton (1905-2006) – Minister of Central Church of Christ, Houston, TX, and later Manhattan Church of Christ, New York City; chaplain in the U.S. armed forces; wrote a 37-volume verse-by-verse commentary on the Old and New Testament.
Criswell, W. A. (1909-2002) – Pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas for over 50 years starting in 1944; founder of Criswell College, First Baptist Academy, and KCBI Radio.
Darby, John Nelson (1800-1882) – Influential teacher among the Plymouth Brethren; considered the “father” of modern dispensationalism; wrote a five volume Synopsis of the Bible outlining the major themes in each book; translated or collaborated in translation of the Bible into English, German, French, and Dutch.
Fausset, A. R. (1821-1910) – Irish rector and chaplain; belonged to the Evangelical school of the Church of England; edited the English translation of Bengel’s five-volume Gnomon Novi Testamenti, wrote the second and fourth volumes of The Critical and Explanatory Pocket Bible, and collaborated with Robert Jamieson and David Brown on a multi-volume Commentary on the Old and New Testaments.
Gaebelein, Arno C. (1861-1945) – Methodist minister and author; editor of periodical Our Hope, which subsequently merged with Eternity magazine; assisted C. I. Scofield with interpretations of prophecies in Scofield Reference Bible.
Gill, John (1697-1771) – Pastored the Strict Baptist church at Goat Yard Chapel, Horsleydown, Southwark, England for over 50 years; wrote a nine volume Exposition of the Entire Bible; considered a staunch Calvinist.
Govett, Robert (1813-1901) – British Bible teacher and pastor of Surrey Chapel, Norwich, Norfolk, England; Govett is particularly credited for his interpretations of the parables and types in the Bible and for his study of the coming reign of Christ, including the judgment seat of Christ and dispensational reward or discipline.
Hodge, Charles (1797-1878) – Principal of Princeton Theological Seminary from 1851-1878; author of three-volume Systematic Theology, considered a classic of Calvinist theology.
Ironside, H. A. (1876-1951) – Pastor of Moody Church in Chicago from 1929-1948; traveled widely to preach; frequently spoke at Dallas Theological Seminary from 1925 to 1943; author of numerous expositions.
Jamieson, Robert (1802-1880) – Scottish minister and co-author of a multi-volume Commentary on the Old and New Testaments with A. R. Fausset and David Brown.
Kelly, William (1821-1906) – Prolific writer among the Plymouth Brethren; edited the Collected Writings of John Nelson Darby, with whom he was a long-time co-worker.
Lang, G. H. (1874-1958) – Bible teacher and scholar, prolific author associated with the Plymouth Brethren movement; edited writings of G. H. Pember; traveled widely to minister the Word.
Lange, John Peter (1802-1884) – German Protestant theologian; professor of dogmatics at Bonn; professor of theology at Zurich; contributed commentaries on ten books of the Bible, including Matthew and Revelation, to Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk, which was subsequently translated and enlarged under the general editorship of Philip Schaff.
Larkin, Clarence (1850-1924) – American Baptist pastor, Bible teacher, and author; his most famous book is Dispensational Truth (or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages).
Lockyer, Herbert (1886-1984) – Pastor, Bible teacher, and author; leader in the Keswick movement; authored a well-known 21-volume All Bible study series, including All the Parables in the Bible.Miller, Andrew (1810-1883) – Voluntary pastor of a Baptist Church in William Street, London; wrote the introduction to C. H. Mackintosh’s Notes on the Penteteuch, the publishing of which he also financed; wrote Miller’s Church History.
Morgan, G. Campbell (1863-1945) – Congregational minister; renowned preacher and Bible expositor; director of Northfield Bible Conference; pastor of Westminster Chapel in London; contributor to The Fundamentals.
Newell, William R. (1868-1956) – Pastored of Bethesda Congregational Church in Chicago; became the first assistant superintendent of Moody Bible Institute under R.A. Torrey in 1895; well-known for commentaries on Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation.
Pember, G. H. (1837-1910) – English Bible and classics scholar associated with the Plymouth Brethren; known for books on prophecy and for Earth’s Earliest Ages, which articulates the “gap” theory of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
Pink, A. W. (1886-1952) – English evangelist and author; studied briefly at Moody Bible Institute; pastored congregations in Australia and in various parts of the United States; his writings were posthumously republished by Banner of Truth Trust, Baker Book House, Moody Press, and Truth for Today, among others.
Poole, Matthew (1624-1679) – English Nonconformist theologian and apologist; rector of St. Michael le Querne, London from 1649-1662; fled England under threat of assassination because of a tract he wrote entitled “Nullity of the Romish Faith”; wrote Synopsis criticorum biblicorum (5 vols fol., 1669-1676) and A Commentary on the Holy Bible (originally published as Annotations upon the Holy Bible); his writings were valued by Charles Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards, among others.
Ross, J. J. – Pastor of Second Baptist Church in Chicago and Lecturer in Homiletics and the English Bible in the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Chicago.
Scofield, C. I. (1843-1921) –Minister at First Congregational Church in Dallas, TX; secretary of American Home Missionary Society of Texas and Louisiana; co-founder of Lake Charles College, Lake Charles, Louisiana; founder of Central American Mission based on fellowship with life-long friend Hudson Taylor; pastored Trinitarian Congregational Church of East Northfield, Massachusetts; oversaw Moody’s Northfield Bible Training School; wrote the notes for the Scofield Reference Bible, a highly influential publication espousing dispensationalist views; became a Southern Presbyterian; supervised the New York Night School of the Bible; founded Philadelphia School of the Bible (now Philadelphia Biblical University) in Philadelphia, PA.
Seiss, Joseph A. (1823-1904) – Evangelical Lutheran minister and prolific author of biblical expositions; pastored congregations in Baltimore and Philadelphia; president of the board of directors, Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.
Spurgeon, Charles H. (1834-1892) – Baptist preacher; built Metropolitan Tabernacle; founded Pastors’ College; established Stockwell orphanage; well-known for collections of his sermons and his opposition to higher criticism of the Bible.
Stedman, Ray (1917-1992) – Graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary; traveled with H.A. Ironside; served in leadership positions at Peninsula Bible Church in Palo Alto, CA for 40 years.
Strauss, Lehman (1911-1997) – Bible teacher and author; taught on the weekly national radio broadcast, “Bible Study Time” (Biola College’s radio ministry, “The Biola Hour”); taught Old Testament History at Philadelphia Bible Institute; pastored Calvary Baptist Church, Bristol, PA, and Highland Park Baptist Church in Highland Park, MI, before devoting himself to speaking in Bible conferences.
Talbot, Louis (1889-1976) – Pastored The Church of the Open Door; President of Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola College); Founded Talbot Theological Seminary (now Talbot School of Theology); founded The Biola Hour national radio broadcast.
Unger, Merrill F. (1909-1980) – After serving as pastor of several churches, he became a professor of Old Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary; author of over forty books, including many reference works.
Vine, W. E. (1873-1949) – Classical scholar, expositor and theologian; author of the Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words; editor of Echoes of Service, a monthly magazine of reports from missionaries around the world.
Walvoord, John F. (1910-2002) – Theologian, pastor and author; professor of systematic theology and president of Dallas Theological Seminary; editor of Bibliotheca Sacra; his writings focused on theology and eschatology.
Wesley, John (1703-1791) – Evangelist, preacher and author; founder of Methodism; with his brother Charles Wesley and George Whitefield, he set out to evangelize Great Britain, traveling on horseback and using open-air preaching to reach the masses.
Wilson, Walter Lewis (1881-1969) –American medical doctor and preacher. Started Central Bible Hall (later Central Bible Church) in Kansas City; founded Kansas City Bible Institute (now the Calvary Bible College); pioneered radio ministry.
The Error of Making Creeds, Not the Bible, the Rule Of Faith
A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches
Read this document as a PDF
In their article criticizing the Christian Research Institute’s reevaluation of the “local churches,” Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes claim that the local churches “refuse to accept the orthodox creedal statements on the Trinity.”1 In endnote 3 they wrote, “A doctrine is said to be aberrant if it undermines or is in significant tension with the orthodox beliefs of the historic Christian faith as based in the Bible and expressed in the early Christian creeds.” By making the creeds the authoritative expression of biblical truth, Geisler and Rhodes actually make the creeds a higher rule of faith than the Bible. This is irresponsible at several levels. Geisler and Rhodes:
- Implicitly fault the local churches for taking the complete Bible as their unique standard of truth, instead of the incomplete creeds.
- Explicitly demand the use of creedal language as a yardstick of Christian orthodoxy.
- Accept as orthodox many other Christian groups that do not take the creeds as their standard of truth.
- Ignore the many affirmations of “orthodox” beliefs regarding the Divine Trinity that pervade the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches.
- Ignore Witness Lee’s extensive and balanced commentary in which he affirms many points of truth in the creeds but also points out their shortcomings.
- Practice hypocrisy given Geisler’s own disavowal of binding authority for the creeds.
Our Standard of Truth—The Bible, Not the Creeds
From the very inception of the ministry of Watchman Nee in China and of the local churches established there, we have consistently taken the stand that the Bible, not the creeds, is the unique standard of the truth. Watchman Nee wrote:
The Bible testifies of itself: “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). For man to consider the creeds as authoritative is for him to annul the authority of the Bible! It causes man to take the creeds as the standard instead of taking the Bible as the standard!2
If creeds were necessary, God’s wisdom surely would have prepared an infallible one. God’s love would surely not have forgotten such a thing and would not have held it back from the church. The fact that God did not give us such a creed shows that such a creed is useless. On the contrary, God has given man a Bible… The condition for understanding the Bible is not great knowledge, great wisdom, or profound study, but a single-hearted desire to be a man of God. Even the poorest and the most foolish man can do this. As a result, it is possible even for him to understand the Word of God. If believers would be men of God in position and in conduct, it would not be difficult for them to understand the Bible.3
Geisler and Rhodes implicitly criticize this position by insisting on the acceptance of creedal statements as the standard of orthodoxy. They fail to explain how acceptance of the Bible as the ultimate rule of faith is in error.
Explicitly Demanding Use of Creedal Language as Proof of Orthodoxy
Geisler claims to have sent a letter to Ron Kangas, editor-in-chief of the Living Stream Ministry publication Affirmation & Critique.4 This letter is attached to the article posted by Geisler and Rhodes criticizing CRI’s reassessment of the teachings of the local churches. In his letter, Geisler criticized the following excerpts from a statement of faith printed near the front of the journal:
Holding the Bible as the complete and only divine revelation, we strongly believe that God is eternally one and also eternally the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the three being distinct but not separate.
and:
We confess that the third of the Trinity, the Spirit, is equally God.5
In the following statements Geisler makes the explicit use of the word “person(s)” in reference to the Trinity a requirement for orthodoxy:
First, if you desired to be considered orthodox in your “Statement of Faith,” then why did you leave out the word “person” of the three members of the Trinity. To be orthodox you should have said “three [persons] being distinct” and “we confess the third [person] of the Trinity.”
Judged by Geisler’s standard, the Bible itself is not orthodox, and neither are the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, as none of them use the word “person” when speaking of the three of the Trinity. Furthermore, in Geisler’s letter to Ron Kangas, Geisler proffers the following definition of heresy:
Based on biblical usage, the word heresy refers to a divisive teaching or practice that is contrary to the historic Christian Faith as based on the Bible and expressed in the early Christian creeds.
This definition is itself absurd. How could the “biblical usage” of the term “heresy” refer to something as “expressed in the early Christian creeds,” which did not even exist at the time of the completion of the writing of the Bible? Geisler’s criticism exhibits a preoccupation with formulaic expressions rather than a proper discernment of biblical truth, and it supplants the words of the Bible with those of the creeds.
A Double Standard: Others Who Do Not Take the Creeds as Their Standard of Truth Are Accepted as Orthodox
When Geisler and Rhodes criticize the local churches as unorthodox for not taking the creeds as their unique standard of truth, they ignore the fact that many great Bible teachers and Christian groups that are accepted as orthodox take the same standing. These Christians also recognized that the creeds produced by the ecumenical councils, although they made a significant contribution to the protection of the church from the incursion of heresy, should never replace the Scriptures as the rule of faith among the believers:
Augustine:
I ought not to oppose the Council of Nice to you, nor ought you to oppose that of Ariminum to me, as prejudging the question. I am not bound by the authority of the latter, nor you by that of the former. Let thing contend with thing, cause with cause, reason with reason, on the authority of Scripture, an authority not peculiar to either, but common to all.6
Martin Luther:
Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God.7
John Calvin:
Be this as it may, we shall never be able to distinguish between contradictory and dissenting councils, which have been many, unless we weigh them all in that balance for men and angels, I mean, the word of God.8
But the Romanists have another end in view when they say that the power of interpreting Scripture belongs to councils, and that without challenge. For they employ it as a pretext for giving the name of an interpretation of Scripture to everything which is determined in councils.9
The Westminster Confession of Faith:
All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice.10
The principle of sola Scriptura, of the Bible as the unique and ultimate authority in matters of divine revelation, has been an important guiding principle for the church since the time of the Reformation. As R. C. Sproul states:
[The Reformers] insisted there is only one written source of special revelation, the Bible. This is the sola of sola Scriptura. The chief reason for the word alone is the conviction that the Bible is inspired by God, while church creeds and pronouncements are the works of men. These lesser works may be accurate and brilliantly conceived, capturing the best insights of learned scholars; but they are not the inspired Word of God.11
Speaking of some who measured orthodoxy by adherence to the Westminster Confession, Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, made the following very weighty argument:
Recent articles published in defense of sound doctrine have quoted the Westminster Confession for authoritative evidence as much as or more than the Word of God. Men are branded as heterodox who disagree at any point with this Confession. Having declared in ordination vows that he believes the Bible to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice, how can a minister go on to assign infallibility to the Westminster Confession? And if the Westminster Confession is accepted as fallible, could that acceptance be interpreted as any more than one of general agreement? Even the drafters of the Westminster Confession did not expect their statement to supplant the Scriptures. They wrote: “The authority of the Holy Scriptures; for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author, and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.” Indeed, it is not a long step from the Protestant claim that a man is heretical who does not accept in toto some dictum of the Protestant Church to the imposition of Rome which is to the effect that the dogmas of the church are equal in authority with the Scriptures. The theologian who draws his proof as much from the standards of his church as from the Bible is slipping from the true Protestant position. To a student whose conception of doctrine is gained from firsthand searching of the Scriptures, the confessions or creeds, though appreciated for what they contain, are nevertheless characterized by what they do not contain. An overweening devotion to creedal statements may easily lead to a neglect of much important truth which is outside the range of those creeds.12 [emphasis added]
Witness Lee pointed out several groups that affirm “no creed but the Bible”:
Although the creeds are good, they are incomplete and even considerably incomplete. In 1828 the Brethren were raised up by the Lord. After discovering the inadequacy of the creeds, they declared that they wanted no creed but the Bible. The incompleteness of the creeds is primarily due to the inadequate knowledge concerning the Divine Trinity. Following the Brethren, those in the Baptist denomination also declared, “No creed but the Bible.” Then another group, the so-called Church of Christ, also made the same declaration. The fourth group of people to make such a declaration are those who are in the Lord’s recovery. Sixty years ago when we were raised up in China, we also declared, “We do not care for the creeds; we care only for the Bible.”13
Of what he calls “the Anabaptist view” Geisler himself has said:
Most Baptist, Congregationalist, Charismatic, Mennonite, Free Church, and Independent Church traditions come from this tradition. Many in this tradition had great respect for the Apostles’ Creed and were evangelical in their central doctrinal beliefs, but they rejected any ecclesiastical authority, holding strongly to the view that the Bible alone has divine authority. This did not mean that they believed that confessions had no value, or that the early creeds did not contain essential orthodox doctrine. It simply means that they believed that only the Bible is infallible and divinely authoritative.14
If Geisler and Rhodes condemn Witness Lee and the local churches for taking the Bible and not the creeds as the rule of faith, they must also condemn the Brethren, the Baptists, the Congregationalists, the Charismatics, the Mennonites, the Free Churches, the Independent Churches, the Church of Christ, and all others who take the same standing.
Ignoring the Local Churches’ Affirmations of the Truth Concerning the Trinity
Geisler and Rhodes would have their readers believe that Witness Lee and the local churches deny the biblical revelation of the Triune God. They withhold from their readers the many affirmations of the basic truths concerning the Divine Trinity in the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches, of which the following are a small sampling:
Holding the Bible as the complete and only divine revelation, we strongly believe that God is eternally one and also eternally the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the three being distinct but not separate.15
We believe that God is the only one Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—co-existing equally from eternity to eternity.16
Using human terms, we may say that there are three Persons in the Godhead, one God with three Persons. I can’t explain this. I can only say that God is triune, that we have one God with three Persons.17
Among the three of the Divine Trinity, there is distinction but no separation. The Father is distinct from the Son, the Son is distinct from the Spirit, and the Spirit is distinct from the Son and the Father. But we cannot say that They are separate, because They coinhere, that is, They live within one another. In Their coexistence the three of the Godhead are distinct, but Their coinherence makes them one. They coexist in Their coinherence, so They are distinct but not separate.18
What the Bible mainly reveals to us is our wonderful God. This God is uniquely one (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4b; Isa. 45:5a) yet triune—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, who coexist simultaneously, from eternity to eternity, and are each fully God. Yet there are not three Gods, but one God in three persons. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three temporal manifestations of the one God; rather, They exist eternally, distinct but not separate from one another.19
We affirm that the most fundamental declaration in the Bible concerning God’s being is that He is one God (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 45:5; Psa. 86:10; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5). Yet He is also revealed to have the aspect of three: in the Old Testament He refers to Himself in both singular and plural terms (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8), and in the New Testament the explicit designations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are used (e.g., Matt. 28:19; Gal. 4:6; cf. 2 Cor. 13:14). Contrary to the commonly held notion that the three are separate and individual persons, thus implying three Gods, we hold that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three hypostases, or persons, distinct though not separate, of the one indivisible God. We affirm that the three are each equally God: the Father is God (1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:17), the Son is God (Heb. 1:8; John 1:1; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; John 20:28), and the Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). We also believe the scriptural testimony that each of the three is equally eternal: the Father is eternal (Isa. 9:6), the Son is eternal (Heb. 1:12; 7:3), and the Spirit is eternal (9:14). Hence, we understand the three to coexist eternally. We do not hold to the notion that the three distinctions in God are temporal or economic modes of His existence which successively begin and end as He accomplishes the successive steps of His economy in time. In witnessing to Their coexistence, the New Testament often portrays the three as operating together simultaneously in the harmony of one manifest action (Matt. 3:16-17; John 14:16-17; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 3:14-17; Rev. 1:4-5). The biblical data convince us, therefore, that the three of the Divine Trinity coexist from eternity to eternity and are each fully God without being three separate and independent persons. Mysteriously, the one God is three.20
Ignoring Witness Lee’s Extensive and Balanced Commentary on the Creeds
In keeping with their practice of not performing primary research, Geisler and Rhodes completely neglect Witness Lee’s extensive and balanced commentary on the creeds in The Revelation and Vision of God, a book cited twice in Elliot Miller’s article in the Christian Research Journal:
According to church history, the earliest creed is the Apostles’ Creed. This creed originated with a group of church fathers, who were all Bible scholars, in the beginning of the second century shortly after the passing away of the apostles. Based upon the apostles’ teachings, they made a thorough study of the truth concerning the Triune God in the Bible in order to give a definition to the Divine Trinity. They were serious and accurate in their study, and the items they set forth may be considered quite deep, thorough, and detailed. The only shortcoming is the incompleteness of the contents.21
Furthermore, although the Nicene Creed contains no heresy and is actually not bad, it is still incomplete in its contents, since there were seven books [of the New Testament] that had not yet been authenticated as authoritative.22
However, even though this revised creed [the revised Nicene Creed of 381 A.D.] is richer than the earlier Nicene Creed in contents and likewise contains no error or heresy, it is still incomplete in that seven books of the New Testament had yet to be recognized.23
Concerning the early church creeds, Witness Lee makes the following points:
- The earliest creeds were limited by the fact that several books of the Bible had not yet been canonized.
- The creeds are incomplete in that they neglect at least fifteen points concerning the Trinity that are clearly stated in Scripture.
- The Chalcedonian Creed contains a great heresy, calling Mary the “Mother of God.”
On this basis, he concludes:
Besides the heresy about “the Mother of God,” there are no other gross errors in the creeds; in fact, many of the items in the creeds are quite accurate. Nevertheless, all the creeds, besides containing some errors, are incomplete. Hence, they cannot be our rules of faith but can serve only as references.24
Any fair reader can see that the criticism Geisler and Rhodes make that we “refuse to accept the orthodox creedal statements on the Trinity” is unfair. They clearly did not read The Revelation and Vision of God, even though it was cited twice in Elliot Miller’s article. In fact, Geisler and Rhodes claim that “there is really no new evidence available since CRI did its first research,” when there is ample evidence that the opposite is true, but this evidence was ignored.
Stark Hypocrisy
Even worse, the accusation made by Geisler and Rhodes is starkly hypocritical. Just two years earlier Geisler himself wrote:
Many churches in Christendom deny the authority of any council, though they agree with many things stated by them, particularly in the early ones. This they do by insisting strongly that only the Bible has binding authority. All creeds and confessions are man-made. Thus, no authority is attached to any church councils, whether they be local or so-called universal councils. This view is called solo Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison in contrast to the Reformed view of sola Scriptura, since the latter read the Bible in the light of the early Fathers and creeds whereas the former do not.
By holding a free church view, as we do, one does not need to deny there is any value to the creeds and councils. It is simply that there is no authority in them, either divine or ecclesiastical. In fact, all orthodox Christians, Catholics and non-Catholics, agree with the basic doctrines affirmed in the earlier so-called ecumenical councils, such as the Trinity, virgin birth, deity of Christ, and Christ’s hypostatic union of two natures in one person. The main concern of orthodox Christians is with attributing any divine or even ecclesiastical authority to creedal and conciliar pronouncements.25 [emphasis added]
To require affirmation of a creedal formulation as proof of orthodoxy concerning the Trinity is to apply a double standard, something which Elliot Miller repeatedly pointed out as the practice of the Christian countercult apologists in their critiques of the local churches.
Conclusion
Applying the standard of creedal conformity as a litmus test of orthodoxy undermines the authority of the Bible. It subordinates the authority of the Bible to the creeds. This is something every believer in Christ should reject. While we respect the efforts of the early church to define what they believed in the face of many distortions of the revelation in the Bible, it is the complete Bible itself that must be the rule of our faith and practice.
Norman Geisler claims to hold to this opinion himself, yet he criticizes Witness Lee and the local churches for taking the same standing. Geisler and Rhodes failed to address either our plain affirmations of the common faith or Witness Lee’s careful evaluation of the creeds. These omissions are particularly troubling given Geisler and Rhodes’ disparagement of the need for more research, such as that performed by CRI.
Notes:
1Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement,” 2009.
2Watchman Nee, The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, vol. 5: The Christian (3) (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1992), p. 448.
3Watchman Nee, The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, vol. 5: The Christian (3) (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1992), pp. 492-493. The latter part quoted is strikingly similar to the following portion from Calvin’s Commentary on the Book of Psalms:
…the Holy Spirit so tempers His style as that the sublimity of the truths which he teaches is not hidden even from those of the weakest capacity, provided they are of a submissive and teachable disposition, and bring with them an earnest desire to be instructed. (John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 2, translated by James Anderson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 229.
4Ron Kangas has no record or recollection of having received this letter.
5“A Statement of Faith,” Affirmation & Critique, XIII:1, April 2008, p. 2.
6Augustine, quoted in John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2, translated by Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979), p. 407.
7Martin Luther, quoted in Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon Press 1950, 1983), p. 144.
8John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2, translated by Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979), p. 408.
9Ibid., p. 411.
10The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. III, ed. By Philip Schaff, rev. by David S. Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1931, 1993), p. 670.
11R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), p. 43.
12Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1936, 1951), pp. 16-17.
13Witness Lee, The Revelation and Vision of God (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 2000), p. 43.
14Norman Geisler, “The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith (Part 1): A Historical Approach,” Christian Research Journal, 28:5, 2005, p. 32.
15Living Stream Ministry, Statement of Faith, www.lsm.org/lsm-statement-faith.html.
16The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1978).
17Witness Lee, Life-study of Genesis (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), p. 61; first published in 1974.
18Witness Lee, The Crucial Points of the Major Items of the Lord’s Recovery (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1993), pp. 10-11.
19Various brothers representing the local churches and the editorial section of Living Stream Ministry, “A Brief Response to ‘An Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the “Local Churches”,’” February 11, 2007, available at www.lctestimony.org/ResponseToOpenLetter.html and in book form at www.contendingforthefaith.org/a-defense-of-the-gospel-responses-to-an-open-letter/.
20Various brothers representing the local churches and the editorial section of Living Stream Ministry, “A Longer Response to ‘An Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the ‘Local Churches”,” December 7, 2008, available at www.lctestimony.org/LongerResponse.html and in book form at www.contendingforthefaith.org/a-defense-of-the-gospel-responses-to-an-open-letter/.
21Witness Lee, The Revelation and Vision of God (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 2000), p. 44.
22Ibid., p. 47. The books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not officially canonized as authoritative books of Scripture until 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage, although they were known and used in the churches before that date.
23Ibid., p. 49.
24Ibid., p. 54.
25Norman L. Geisler and Joshua M. Betancourt, Is Rome the True Church?: A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), p. 52.
Repeating False Witness in Accusing the Local Churches of “Litigiousness”
A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches
Read this document as a PDF
For years certain circles within the Christian countercult movement have cultivated the perception that the local churches employ litigation and the threat of litigation to silence critics. As supporting evidence, they rely on a list of purported lawsuits and threats of lawsuits published by the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) in 1983 to rally support for defense of their book The God-Men, which was subsequently ruled to be libelous.1 SCP’s list appears to be based on a list that was produced in a contemporaneous litigation concerning The Mindbenders: A Look at Current Cults (Mindbenders), which was subsequently retracted with an apology from the publisher in an agreement signed by its author, Jack Sparks.2
Neither Sparks nor SCP provided supporting documentation for the charges in their respective lists. Their compilations should have been suspect, given their obvious bias in the matter. Nevertheless, this list has been accepted as fact by the critics of the local churches and has been subsequently revised and republished in various forms by Jim Moran, the Cult Awareness & Information Center, the Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry, Harvest House Publishers, and Eric Pement. These largely undocumented claims have in themselves sufficed as evidence of the charge of litigiousness among the countercult community. Most recently, Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes have endorsed Eric Pement’s version of this list, saying:
The Local Church (LC), known for its litigious activity in threatening to sue (and actually suing) individuals and groups that call them a “cult”…
and:
Noted cult researcher Eric Pement has listed numerous examples of Christian groups that were threatened or sued by the LC, most of which CRI [Christian Research Institute] did not even attempt to refute in its Journal articles.3
Nearly all of the authors and publishers on these lists produced works that simply repeated the accusations made in The God-Men and The Mindbenders without further research. Even John Weldon’s early drafts of what became the chapter on the local churches in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions were derived from these sources and exhibited the exact same distortions of context that characterized the two earlier books.4 Both The God-Men and The Mindbenders drew on the same manuscript produced by a young staff member of the pseudo-radical Christian World Liberation Front at the University of California at Berkeley. Thus, what Geisler, Rhodes, Pement, and the others seek to characterize as indiscriminate use of litigation to silence critics was actually an attempt to deal with the propagation of false, libelous accusations concerning unethical behaviors. On April 3, 1984, in a letter to SCP’s leadership, Dr. J. Gordon Melton said that he had, based on his own direct research, concluded that the local churches “have a strong case [against SCP] for libel—including conspiracy and malicious intent.” In that letter Melton also stated that he had discussed these very matters personally with Eric Pement, a fact which Pement neglects to mention.5 Geisler and Rhodes’ repetition of the countercult’s mantra of local church litigiousness is simply more of the same—uncritical acceptance and spreading of false reports from biased sources without direct research.
Over time Sparks’ list of supposed “direct or vailed [sic] threats” has been repeated and expanded into a list that is promoted by some in the countercult movement as authoritative evidence of litigiousness by the local churches. These accusations are lacking in factual basis, as the following documented accounts illustrate:
Christian Research Institute, 1977
Pement claims that the local churches threatened a lawsuit against the Christian Research Institute in 1977. Elliot Miller states in his article:
In response to Pement, I know for a fact that he is wrong about the LC threatening legal action against CRI in 1977 (or in any other year for that matter).
Miller’s statement is in accord with the facts and the available documentation. Prior to a conference given by Walter Martin at Faith Lutheran Church in Anaheim early in 1977, some of the Orange County local churches sent letters to CRI, Faith Lutheran Church, and its governing body. There were no threats of litigation in those letters. Transcripts of statements made by both sides during public meetings held on February 8 and 9, 1977, at Faith Lutheran also contain no support for Pement’s claim of legal threats.
Those conversations laid the groundwork for a subsequent meeting between Walter Martin and Witness Lee. The tone of that meeting was amicable and its outcome encouraging. However, that promising beginning failed to bear lasting fruit. On October 2, 1977, Walter Martin criticized Witness Lee and the local churches in a public meeting at Melodyland Christian Center. In response, the churches published a series of articles in The Orange County Register between October 1977 and March 1978. Although this period was a time of confrontation between the churches and CRI, no legal action was threatened or taken by either party.
James Bjornstad and Regal Books, 1979
In 1979, Regal Books (Regal) published Counterfeits at Your Door (Counterfeits) by James Bjornstad. The book claimed that the local churches had a public teaching and a private teaching, that is, that the local churches misled people as to their real beliefs.6 Responsible members of local churches wrote a few letters to Bjornstad. Some of the letters did ask the author to retract the book and apologize for his errors. None of the letters contained a threat of legal action. None of the available documentation shows that the publisher or the author ever claimed there was such a written threat.
In 1980 three responsible brothers representing the churches, none of whom were lawyers, visited Bjornstad in the New York law offices of the firm that represented Regal. Regal’s lawyer was present, but the brothers representing the churches came without legal counsel. Because of his involvement with SCP, Bjornstad was later deposed during The God-Men litigation. When questioned about the meeting at the offices of Regal’s legal counsel, Bjornstad admitted that no threats of litigation had been made by any of the brothers.
Salem Kirban, 1980
The first edition of Satan’s Angels Exposed (Angels) by Salem Kirban (1980) contained a section on “The Local Church” that was highly derivative of Jack Sparks’ Mindbenders.7 On July 12, 1980, the churches in Texas wrote to Mr. Kirban to protest inclusion of the local churches in Angels and to outline objections to the portrayal of the churches taken from Mindbenders. The letter stated that its signers’ intent was to establish a dialogue with Kirban as brothers in Christ to resolve the issues with Angels. The writers explained that they considered the content of Mindbenders to be false and defamatory concerning the local churches and that, after trying to dialogue with Sparks and others (who flatly refused all such attempts), it had become necessary to enter into litigation against the book’s author and publisher. Since Kirban relied upon Mindbenders as his source concerning the churches, the leading brothers in the churches in Texas considered it their responsibility to inform him of the serious problems involving the book.8
In response, Kirban extended an invitation to the brothers to submit more material for his consideration, and he opened the door to dialog via a phone call or other means of communication.9 On August 7 four representatives from the local churches traveled to his home. Kirban and his wife graciously received them, and Mrs. Kirban prepared a meal for them. After some fellowship, an agreement was reached that resulted in the chapter on “The Local Church” being omitted from subsequent editions of Angels and in Mindbenders being deleted from its recommended reading list. There was some subsequent friendly correspondence, and upon the resolution of the Mindbenders litigation, the matter was closed. There was never a threat of litigation against Mr. Kirban.
Jerram Barrs and InterVarsity Press, 1983
Jerram Barrs, then a co-director of L’Abri Fellowship in England, wrote Freedom & Discipleship: Your Church and Your Personal Decisions (Freedom), published by InterVarsity Press (IVP) in 1982. The book’s treatment of the local churches relied heavily on The God-men. Most of the quotes from Witness Lee’s writings used in Freedom were the same ones found in The God-Men and were misrepresented in the same manner.
On April 27, 1983, representatives of the church in Blackpool, England, sent a four-page letter to the author and copied the letter to the British publisher. In it they pointed out the errors and misrepresentations in Freedom and protested the false accusations made in it. The letter and the cover letter to IVP were respectful and did not mention legal action. In addition, some letters were written by other individuals to the author and the publisher asking for a retraction.
On April 30, 1983, two other members from Blackpool representing LSM wrote to Barrs in care of IVP in England. This letter stated that if Barrs refused to dialogue with the brothers (which he did), they were prepared to publish a public rebuttal (which they did).
On May 4, 1983, Derek Wood of IVP sent the letter from the church in Blackpool to Neil Duddy, then in Denmark, and asked for his advice in the matter. In his reply of May 16, Duddy recommended that Wood seek legal counsel. This was the first time the matter of litigation or legal representation was brought up in any of the correspondence.
On June 2, Wood responded to Duddy, thanking him specifically for this suggestion. On the same day, Wood wrote a letter to Mr. S. W. Groom, a solicitor (lawyer), asking for a legal opinion about IVP’s options. In it, Wood does not claim that the church in Blackpool, Living Stream Ministry (LSM), or any of the individuals who wrote to complain about Freedom ever mentioned litigation, only that they asked for a retraction. In fact, he characterized the letters sent to IVP and Barrs as “more in sorrow than in anger.” IVP and Barrs decided to remove the references to Witness Lee and the local churches from all subsequent printings of the book. Similar material was unilaterally removed from Barrs’ book Shepherds and Sheep: A Biblical View of Leading and Following, which was also published by IVP. At no time were there any threats of legal action by the church in Blackpool, LSM, or anyone else involved.
Moody Press, 1991
In 1991, Moody Press published A Concise Dictionary of Cults & Religions, by William Watson. In correspondence with the author on June 27, 1991, Dennis Shere, then a vice-president of Moody Press, stated that Moody had unilaterally decided not to include anything concerning the local churches in the book. There was no contact between the local churches and Moody concerning the matter, and no threats of litigation were made.
Our Standard
It is false to claim that the lawsuits filed by the local churches were motivated by efforts to silence critics’ theological disagreements, a fact that Eric Pement should have known from his own experience. When Pement was a leader in Jesus People USA (JPUSA), they published a tract that featured a hideous caricature of a church member. The tract misrepresented and attacked the teachings and persons of Witness Lee and those in the local churches. This prompted a visit to JPUSA in Chicago by two representatives of the local churches, who strongly protested the inaccurate and unfair representation of the local churches in the tract in a meeting in which Pement participated. JPUSA never changed the tract, and no agreement was reached at that meeting concerning the accuracy or appropriateness of the tract. However, JPUSA was never threatened with legal action, and none was taken against them, even though they continued to publish and disseminate the tract. It is indeed strange that Pement, who had first-hand knowledge of this meeting and its outcome, neglected to mention the meeting in his recounting of earlier rumors.
The same standard has been applied to Geisler and Rhodes, who, though vocal in their criticism of the local churches’ theology, have not been sued or threatened with litigation for their grievous misrepresentations of the teachings of the local churches. Rather than passing on unsubstantiated rumors, Geisler and Rhodes should have testified of this fact based on their own experience.
Geisler and Rhodes assert that the churches’ claim of seeking redress through dialog was disproved by John Ankerberg and Harvest House. (Geisler and Rhodes do not tell their readers that it was Harvest House that filed suit first at a time when representatives of LSM and the local churches were seeking to dialogue with them.) In response to CRI’s statement that “the LC always took legal action as a last resort when the parties absolutely refused to meet with them as Christian brothers,” Geisler and Rhodes state:
Despite factual evidence provided by Ankerberg and Harvest House to the contrary (which convinced the High Courts), one is hard-pressed to justify these kinds of lawsuits on biblical grounds.
In fact, Ankerberg and Harvest House provided no such factual evidence. They simply reproduced the same litany of false and unsubstantiated accusations in an affidavit submitted by Mary Cooper, Harvest House’s Vice President of Administration:
Several organizations that research and report on cults, such as Cult Awareness & Information Centre, Apologetics Index, and The Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry, have, in the past or presently, publicized and discussed the fact that Living Stream Ministry and/or The Local Church have initiated, at our count, at least 14 legal proceedings, lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits against those who call their teachings into question (Exhibit K).
The list attached to Cooper’s affidavit is yet another example of propagating these same false rumors as though they were fact. The purpose of the exhibit was to “prove” the litigious behavior of the local churches, yet half of the 14 examples listed alleged no legal proceedings or even purported threats of any kind. Cooper also included the five cases discussed in this article. As has been clearly demonstrated, these cases involved no legal actions or threats. The only two cases that proceeded to litigation were The Mindbenders and The God-men. The Mindbenders was retracted with an apology,10 and The God-Men was judged by a court to be libelous.11
Furthermore, contrary to the claim made by Geisler and Rhodes, Cooper’s affidavit was submitted to the District Court, which rejected the defendants’ motion for summary judgment that the affidavit was supporting, not to the “High Courts.” There is no evidence that the “High Courts” or even the Texas Court of Appeals read it, much less were convinced by it. Thus, Geisler and Rhodes’ attempt to muster support from the “High Courts” to bolster the charge of litigiousness they levy against the local churches is without factual basis.
Conclusion
The five cases examined here demonstrate that the accusation propagated by the countercult movement that the local churches are litigious is not supported by the oft-cited lists of purported threats of litigation first developed by Jack Sparks and SCP. Geisler and Rhodes fault Elliot Miller for not refuting every case in the most recent revision of this list published by Eric Pement, yet they in no way fault Pement for disseminating the list without supplying proof of its charges. Normally the burden of proof rests on the person making an accusation, yet Geisler and Rhodes, among others, have accepted mere unsubstantiated accusations as proof. The cases presented here show the emptiness of Geisler and Rhodes’ criticism.
The charge of litigiousness against the local churches has been accepted as axiomatic among countercultists, that is, something of which there is no need of proof. Examined in light of available facts, the propagation of this falsehood is simply rumor-mongering. It exhibits a mentality that is sadly characteristic of some in the countercult apologetics community, that is, that rumors and accusations weigh more than facts. They excuse those who libel others and savage those who have the audacity to point out their errors. They also refuse to police themselves, and they show a propensity to excuse poor scholarship, deceit, and worse among their own. It is encouraging, however, that some such as CRI, Gretchen Passantino, and Fuller Theological Seminary have a greater care for the truth than is evidenced by the work of some countercult apologists. We hope that other responsible scholars from the apologetics community would similarly seek out the truth through careful primary research and meaningful dialogue.
Notes:
1See http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/god-men/decision/completeText.html.
2See http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/mindbenders/retraction.html. Because of their participation in the development of the book, the settlement agreement was also signed by John Braun, Peter Gillquist, and Richard Ballew, who were co-founders with Sparks and others of the New Covenant Apostolic Order and the Evangelical Orthodox Church.
3This criticism of the CRI article is unfair. The stated goal of Elliot Miller’s article was to address in a balanced fashion the accusations made against the local churches in an open letter published on the Internet by a group of “evangelical scholars and ministry leaders.” His article presented the most broad-based assessment of the teachings of the local churches available to date. To document the falsity of the claims made in Pement’s chart would have skewed the article from its stated goal and would have been overly burdensome to CRI’s readership.
4For examples of this, see Dr. J. Gordon Melton’s An Open Letter Concerning the Local Church, Witness Lee and The God-Men Controversy on this site.
5Letter from Dr. J. Gordon Melton to Brooks Alexander and Bill Squires, April 3, 1984.
6Even at the time Counterfeits was published, Living Stream Ministry was publishing as much of the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee as possible in audio, video, and print media. Today there are over 700 titles in print in the English language and over 4000 audio and 3000 video tapes (see LSM’s Audio/Video Tape Catalog). In addition, there are over 1700 radio broadcasts available for downloading free of charge from the Internet (see “Life-study of the Bible with Witness Lee Radio Broadcast“). To maintain a private teaching that was different from such an extensive public record would be impossible.
7The Mindbenders was subsequently withdrawn by the publisher, and a retraction with an apology was printed in major newspapers across the United States (see the first paragraph of this article).
8Although some might characterize this as a veiled threat, that is a purely subjective interpretation that should not be advanced as factual evidence. The goal was to cause the author to reevaluate the credibility of the sources he had relied upon.
9Letter from Salem Kirban to the church in Dallas, July 25, 1980.
The Error of Insisting on Three “Persons” as a Litmus Test of Orthodoxy
A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches
Read this document as a PDF
The statement of faith in Affirmation & Critique: A Journal of Christian Thought (A&C) states:
Holding the Bible as the complete and only divine revelation, we strongly believe that God is eternally one and also eternally the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the three being distinct but not separate… We confess that the third of the Trinity, the Spirit, is equally God.1
Norman Geisler, in a letter to Ron Kangas, A&C‘s Editor-in-Chief, called these statements concerning the Trinity unorthodox, stating:
First, if you desired to be considered orthodox in your “Statement of Faith,” then why did you leave out the word “person” of the three members of the Trinity. To be orthodox you should have said “three [persons] being distinct” and “we confess the third [person] of the Trinity.”2
Thus, to Geisler any statement speaking of the three of the Divine Trinity that does not use the word “persons” is unorthodox. Furthermore, Geisler, in an article co-signed by Ron Rhodes, denounce the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches as heresy based on the following statement made by Witness Lee:
The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person.3
They present this statement completely apart from its original context as proof positive of heresy and claim that to speak of God as “one person” and as “three persons” is impossibly contradictory:
Once one gives up on the law of non-contradiction, there is no basis for intelligible affirmations or denials, orthodox or unorthodox. It is simply not possible for God to be both only one Person and also three Persons at the same time and in the same sense. But Lee does not distinguish any different sense in which God is both only one Person and three Persons in the ontological Trinity. Nor do LC leaders distinguish any real difference between claiming God is three Persons and yet only one Person in His essential Being4.
The criticism of Geisler and Rhodes is faulty on numerous points:
- The term person in reference to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not a biblical one, but was invented to try to explain the biblical revelation.
- Many theologians recognize the problem of using the word “persons” to speak of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
- Part of the problem with the term person is that as it entered into the vernacular, the common understanding of what it means changed.
- The modern understanding of “person” tends to lead towards tritheism.
- Norman Geisler’s insistence that the one God cannot be spoken of as a person in the singular sense contradicts the biblical record.
- In the context that Geisler and Rhodes omitted, Witness Lee did clearly state the “sense” in which he used the term one person.
- Geisler and Rhodes apply a different standard of truth to the quote excised from Witness Lee’s ministry than the standard they apply to the statements of Cornelius Van Til.
- If Geisler and Rhodes were consistent in their condemnation of using “person” in a singular sense to refer to God, they would also have to condemn many other respected teachers and servants of the Lord who have spoken of God as “a person.”
- The criticism by Geisler and Rhodes is inconsistent with Geisler’s own definition of “personhood” and their own references to God as a singular person without any explanation of the “sense” in which they made those references.
- Geisler and Rhodes refuse to fairly evaluate all of the evidence available in the published writings of Witness Lee concerning the nature of God.
Person Not a Biblical Term
In spite of the insistence of Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes on the formulation of “one essence, three Persons,” this is not a biblical expression. As Thomas F. Torrance, Professor of Christian Dogmatics at the University of Edinburgh, noted:
However, in the biblical tradition itself, in the Old and New Testaments, there is no explicit concept of ‘person’…5
Augustus H. Strong, whom Geisler and Rhodes referred to as “the noted Baptist theologian,” said:
The term ‘person’ only approximately represents the truth. Although this word, more nearly than any other single word, expressed the conception which the Scriptures give us of the relation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it is not itself used in this connection in Scriptures, and we employ it in a qualified sense, not in the ordinary sense in which we apply the word ‘person’ to Peter, Paul, and John.6
J. Scott Horrell, Professor of Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, notes:
If the term nature is difficult when we speak of God, the term person is all the more complex. Theologians such as Tertullian, the Cappadocians, Augustine, and Aquinas differ in their concept of person, even if modern and postmodern conceptions vary considerably more.7
According to a recent book by Thomas Weinandy, a Catholic theologian and lecturer in History and Doctrine at the University of Oxford:
A good deal of discussion is taking place among contemporary theologians on the suitability of designating as ‘persons’ the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.8
The problem with the term person is not a new one. In a sermon in 1775, John Wesley commented:
I dare not insist upon anyone’s using the word “Trinity” or “Person.” I use them myself without any scruple, because I know of none better: But if any man has scruple concerning them, who shall constrain him to use them? I cannot.9
Norman Geisler exercises no such restraint. By contesting the A&C statement of faith because it does not use the word “person,” Geisler applies a non-biblical litmus test as his standard of orthodoxy. To him, no statement concerning the distinctions among the three of the Godhead can be orthodox if it does not explicitly use the term person. Based on Geisler’s standard, the Bible, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Nicene Creed must all be condemned as unorthodox as none of them uses the word “person” to refer to any of the three of the Divine Trinity.
Problems with the Definition of the Term
The problem is that the full theological significance of the term person as it applies to the Trinity is not clearly defined or even definable. As Millard Erickson, Distinguished Professor of Theology at Western Seminary, has noted:
The formula was worked out quite definitely in the fourth century. God is one substance or essence, existing in three persons. The difficulty is that we do not know exactly what these terms mean. We know that the doctrine states that God is three in some respect and one in some other respect, but we do not know precisely what those two different respects are.10
The Scottish theologian H. R. Mackintosh wrote:
Words in such a realm are more or less arbitrary, and must be taken in a sense appropriate to their objects of denotation; and it is certain that ?p?stas?? in Greek theology, and persona, its Latin equivalent, do not mean now, and never have meant, what we usually intend by Personality.11
In his exposition of “Threeness in Oneness” in his magnum opus Church Dogmatics, the Swiss theologian Karl Barth attempted to avoid the concept of “person”:
In our opening sentence of our section we avoided the concept “Person.” Neither was it on its introduction into ecclesiastical language made sufficiently clear, nor has the subsequent interpretation, imparted to it and enforced as a whole in mediæval and post-Reformation scholasticism, really issued in such a clearing up, nor has the introduction of the modern concept of personality into this debate produced anything else but fresh confusion.12
In his Dogmatics in Outline Barth further states:
But when we speak today of person, involuntarily and almost irresistibly the idea arises of something rather like the way in which we men are persons. And actually this idea is as ill-suited as possible to describe what God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is.13
Louis Berkhof, the late systematic theologian and President of Calvin Theological Seminary, wrote:
To denote these distinctions in the Godhead, Greek writers generally employed the term hupostasis, while Latin authors used the term persona, and sometimes substantia. Because the former was apt to be misleading and the latter was ambiguous, the Schoolmen coined the word subsistentia. The variety of the terms used points to the fact that their inadequacy was always felt. It is generally admitted that the word ‘person’ is but an imperfect expression of the idea.14
More recently, the Finnish theologian Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen has written:
Much has been written about this history of the term persona and its application to Trinitarian language. The contours of the term are both obscure and wide. In its original sense it has the meaning of “mask” as worn by an actor in a play, thus denoting something that is not “real” for the human being behind the mask. The other extreme, the modern one, is to regard the persona as not only something “real” about the human being but also highly individualistic… Understandably, neither the etymology of the term nor its highly individualized modern meaning captures the principles of distinction-in-unity meant by those who first applied it to describe the Christian God.15
Problems with the Common Understanding of “Person”
Although the problem surrounding the term person has existed since its first usage, the difficulties have become more acute in modern times because of the adoption of the term into the vernacular to designate a discrete and separate conscious being.16 Walter Kasper, a Roman Catholic scholar, has commented:
But if we leave aside the historical arguments (exegetical and those from the history of religions and of dogma) and look at the arguments based directly on the content of the teaching, then one objection stands out as more important than the others: modern subjectivity and the modern concept of person which it has produced. In the modern period, person is no longer understood in ontological terms but is defined as a self-conscious free center of action and as individual personality.17
Thomas F. Torrance also noted:
It is important to note, however, that once the concept of ‘person’ was launched into the stream of human ideas and became a regular item in the furniture of our everyday thought it inevitably tended to have an independent history of its own and in spite of cultural variations to give rise in people’s minds to a general conception of what person denotes. It would be a serious mistake, however, to interpret what is meant by ‘Person’ in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity by reference to any general, and subsequent, notion of person, and not by reference to its aboriginal theological sense.18
Concerns That “Persons” Leads to Tritheism
Geisler and Rhodes completely ignore the context of Witness Lee’s teaching. As Elliot Miller noted in his article in the Christian Research Journal, Witness Lee was responding to the concept of “person” that has led Western believers in the direction of tritheism, that is, belief that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not only distinct but also separate, becoming in effect three Gods. This was the reason Witness Lee said, “The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods.” Witness Lee’s concern has been shared by some very prominent Western theologians. For example, W. H. Griffith Thomas, who was instrumental in the founding of Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote:
The term “Person” is also sometimes objected to. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism. While we use the term to denote distinctions in the Godhead, we do not imply distinctions which amount to separateness, but distinctions which are associated with essential mutual co-inherence or inclusiveness….
While, therefore, we are compelled to use terms like “substance” and “Person,” we are not to think of them as identical with what we understand as human substance or personality. The terms are not explanatory, but only approximately correct, as must necessarily be the case with any attempt to define the Nature of God.19
In the article by Geisler and Rhodes, part of this passage is quoted without attribution and then criticized by them as though it were Witness Lee’s words:
But Lee elsewhere contradicts this by saying, “Actually, to use the designation ‘three persons’ to explain the Father, Son, and Spirit is also not quite satisfactory because ‘three Persons’ really means three persons…. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism….”
Nowhere do Geisler and Rhodes tell their readers that the last half of this excerpt is actually Witness Lee quoting W. H. Griffith Thomas.
Griffith Thomas’ concern was echoed by Thomas Weinandy:
There is the Trinitarian concern that the term ‘person’, when applied to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, either is inadequate or, worse still, imparts an erroneous connotation. Without our post-Lockean and post-Kantian milieu, does not three ‘persons’ imply three subjective individual consciousnesses and thus lead to tritheism when applied to God?20
It should be noted that Witness Lee spoke of God in three persons on many occasions, but that he was careful to explain the issues surrounding the term in a balanced way, something that Geisler and Rhodes do not do.21
Norman Geisler’s Position Contradicts the Bible
According to Geisler’s published writings, it is improper to speak of God as “one person,” as “a person,” or even as “personal” in any kind of singular sense.22 This position attempts to enforce an external standard of “orthodoxy” on the truth revealed in the Bible. Thus, when Geisler cites the formula “one essence, three Persons” or “one nature, three Persons,” he imposes on those words a narrow and exclusive meaning that attempts to codify the mystery of the nature of the Triune God:
By saying God has one essence and three persons it is meant that he has one “What” and three “Whos.” The three Whos (persons) each share the same What (essence). So God is a unity of essence with a plurality of persons. Each person is different, yet they share a common nature.23
Geisler’s explanation is itself a contradiction. Immediately after he says God has “one essence and three persons,” he refers to God with the singular personal pronoun “he.”
The problem, as the theologians cited in this article attest, is that Geisler’s definition does not answer the fundamental question of what the oneness among the three Persons is. It is not the expressions “one nature, three Persons” or “one essence, three Persons” that are objectionable; in fact, as noted above, Witness Lee used these terms often. Rather, what is not acceptable is the dogmatic insistence upon these terms as a formula that is adequate to fully express the mystery of the Triune God without any of the qualifiers which theologians throughout the centuries have recognized as necessary because of the limitations of human language. Both essence and nature are commonly understood as something abstract and impersonal, yet that does not describe what our God is. Millard Erickson rightly pointed out the same error that is evident in Geisler’s statement:
God is a unitary being. Sometimes one gets the conception that the nature of God is a bundle of attributes, somewhat loosely tied together. God, however, is not an attribute or a predicate. He is a living person, a subject.24
While Geisler’s distinction between “what” and “who” makes for a tidy formula, it does not match the revelation in the Bible. The Bible repeatedly refers to God as “I,” “Me,” “He,” and “Him.” These are personal pronouns and it would be inappropriate to apply them to some abstract essence or nature or to a “what.” Genesis 1:26-27 says, “And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Here the pronoun referring to God switches from the plural “Us” and “Our” to the singular “He” and “His,” but it is always used in the sense of a person speaking and acting.
In Exodus God referred to Himself as the “I Am”: “And God said to Moses, I am who I am. And He said, Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I am has sent me to you.” In Exodus 20:2-3 Jehovah instructed the children of Israel, “I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the slave house; you shall have no other gods before Me.” Here God refers to Himself with a singular personal pronoun. In fact, as the I am, God is not only a person; He is the Person. The inescapable conclusion is that either the Bible is wrong in referring to God as a person or Geisler is wrong.
Matthew 28:19 is one of the clearest revelations of the Trinity. It says, “Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Here the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have one name. The word for “name” in this verse is the singular form of the same word that is used in Acts 1:15 in the plural form for “persons.”25 According to Matthew 28:19, baptizing people into “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is not merely a formula to be recited at baptisms but an act of immersing those who have believed into and received Christ into the reality of the divine Person of the Triune God. This is why in his footnote on “name” in Matthew 28:19 in the Recovery Version of the New Testament, Witness Lee commented:
There is one name for the Divine Trinity. The name is the sum total of the Divine Being, equivalent to His person. To baptize someone into the name of the Triune God is to immerse him into all that the Triune God is.
The Context of Witness Lee’s Statement That Geisler and Rhodes Omitted
Geisler and Rhodes and the other signers of the open letter with them pluck one sentence from the voluminous ministry of Witness Lee as proof that he teaches God is one person in purported contradiction of the “orthodox” teaching of the Trinity. Read in context, this sentence is part of an exposition of Matthew 28:19, which clearly identifies God as triune, a three-one person with one name:
The revelation of the Triune God can be found throughout the New Testament. In Matthew 28:19, the Lord Jesus charged the disciples to baptize the nations “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In this verse, name is singular in number, yet the one name refers to three persons. This shows that there is one name for the Divine Trinity (see notes 5 and 6 on Matthew 28:19 in the Recovery Version). The word person is often used to describe the three of the Divine Trinity, yet we must be careful in using such a term…
The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person. Hence, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are denoted by one name. The name denotes the person, and the person is the reality of the name. The name of the Divine Trinity is the sum total of the divine Being, equivalent to His person. God is triune; that is, He is three-one. In some theological writings, the preposition in is added between three and one to make three-in-one. However, it is more accurate to say that God is three-one.26
In this passage Witness Lee said both “the one name refers to three persons” (which Geisler and Rhodes do not quote) and “the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons” (which they do quote out of context). Geisler and Rhodes claim that Witness Lee did not identify the sense in which his speaking about God being “one person” differed from the sense of Him being “three persons,” which to them is an intolerable contradiction. In fact, Witness Lee did say that “the name of the Divine Trinity”—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—”is the sum total of the divine Being, equivalent to His person.” Would Geisler and Rhodes claim that “the Father, the Son, and the Spirit” is not “the sum total of the divine Being,” that is, His person? Would they claim that the use of “name” in the singular does not indicate that the entire God is a person in the sense “name” is used in the Bible?
An Inconsistent Standard of Truth
Proverbs 20:23 tells us, “Differing weights are an abomination to Jehovah, and false scales are not good.” To have an inconsistent standard of appraisal in evaluating the teachings of different persons is to have differing weights. This is precisely what Geisler and Rhodes do when they condemn Witness Lee, but not Cornelius Van Til, the late professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, for saying that God is one person. Van Til said:
Yet this is not the whole truth of the matter. We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person…. Over against all other beings, that is, over against created beings, we must therefore hold that God’s being presents an absolute numerical identity. And even within the ontological Trinity we must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person. When we say that we believe in a personal God we do not merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective “personality” may be attached. God is not an essence that has personality…27
Geisler and Rhodes write:
To give Van Til the benefit of the doubt, either his insistence on God as a Person should be taken to refer to the Godhead overall as a tri-personal being, or else we must understand that the term “Person” does not mean exactly the same thing when speaking of God as one as it does when speaking of God as three.
Geisler and Rhodes give no “benefit of the doubt” to Witness Lee. Nevertheless, their allowance that Van Til might be speaking of “the Godhead overall as a tri-personal being” is unwarranted as Van Til specifically said he was speaking of “the whole Godhead.” The real questions are:
- How does Van Til’s mention of “the whole Godhead” differ from Witness Lee’s explicit statement that “the name of the Divine Trinity is the sum total of the divine Being, equivalent to His person”?
- What is the difference between “the Godhead overall” (which Geisler and Rhodes approve of) and “the sum total of the divine Being”?
- How can Geisler and Rhodes justify Van Til on the supposition that he is speaking of “the Godhead overall as a tri-personal being” and condemn Witness Lee who speaks of “the sum total of the divine Being,” whom he then explicitly describes as three-one?
Clearly Geisler and Rhodes apply “different weights” in evaluating the statements of Cornelius Van Tell, a well-known Reformed theologian from a respected seminary, than they do in criticizing the similar statement of Witness Lee, whom they seek to portray as unorthodox and outsidet he common faith.
Is God a Person?—What Others Say
If Geisler condemns the teaching that the entire Triune God is a person, he must also condemn many other well-known teachers who have spoken of God as a person in the singular sense:
Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary:
…the Scriptures proceed in the presentation of the nature and character of God. He is a Person with those faculties and constituent elements which belong to personality.28
Karl Barth:
The definition of a person—that is, a knowing, willing, acting I—can have the meaning only of a confession of the person of God declared in His revelation, of the One who loves and who as such (living in His own way) is the person.29
Alvin Plantinga, a respected Protestant philosopher and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame:
If God is a living, conscious being who knows, wills, and acts—if, in a word, God is a person—then God is not a property or state of affairs or set or proposition or any other abstract object.30
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a respected evangelical scholar and minister at Westminster Chapel in London for almost thirty years:
The Bible says that God is a person and this is absolutely vital to any true sense of worship, and to our having a feeling of confidence about ourselves and about the world….
But there is a great deal of direct evidence for saying that God is a person. Have you noticed how the presence of God is always described in a personal way? Take the name of God that we have considered: ‘I am’, that is a personal statement, it is a person who can say, ‘I am,’ and God says that He speaks of Himself in this manner. Every single representative of God has declared that God is a person and not simply an unconscious force.31
Billy Graham, in a section entitled “God Is a Person”:
Not only is God a spirit, but He also is a person—that is, He has personality, just as we do. Every trait we attribute to ourselves can be attributed to God. A person feels, thinks, desires, and decides—and so does God. A person enters into relationships—and so does God. A person acts—and so does God. God feels; God thinks; God sympathizes; God forgives; God hopes; God decides; God acts; God judges—all because He is a person. If He weren’t why pray to Him or worship Him? God is not an impersonal force or power; He is a person—the most perfect person imaginable.32
Geisler and Rhodes Contradict Themselves
The criticism by Geisler and Rhodes is inconsistent with Geisler’s own definition of “personhood.” In his Systematic Theology Geisler says:
Personhood is traditionally understood as one who has intellect, feelings, and will…. Essentially, personhood refers to an “I,” a “who,” or a subject… Personhood itself is its I-ness or who-ness.33
Based on their own definition, how can Geisler and Rhodes claim that God is not presented as an “I” or a “who” in the Bible?
Furthermore, their criticism is even more incomprehensible when one looks at the following excerpt from Geisler’s own apologetics encyclopedia:
Yahweh, however, only refers to the one true God. No other person or thing was to be worshiped or served (Exod. 20:5), and his name and glory were not to be given to another.34
What does Geisler mean by “no other person or thing”? Is this not an acknowledgement that Jehovah as the one true God is a person? Even more tellingly, Geisler and Rhodes made the following statement in a jointly authored book:
Indeed, there is no other person but God to whom anyone anywhere in the Holy Scriptures ever turned in prayer.35
Furthermore, under the heading “The Only True God Is a Person,” Rhodes wrote:
A person is a conscious being—someone who thinks, feels, and purposes, and carries those purposes into action. A person engages in active relationships with other people. You can talk to a person and get a response. You can share feelings and ideas with him. You can argue with him, love him, and even hate him.
Surely by this definition God must be understood as a person.36
How can Geisler and Rhodes refer to God as a person in a singular sense and then condemn others for doing so? In these cases, they themselves did not differentiate in what sense they spoke of God as one person and in what sense they spoke of Him as three.
Geisler and Rhodes Refuse to Address All the Evidence
The Triune God is a major theme in the ministry of Witness Lee. His writings contain many thorough and balanced expositions on the subjects of God being one yet having the aspect of three, of all Three being eternal and being God, of all Three coexisting and coinhering eternally, and of the errors of both modalism and tritheism.37 Moreover, on many occasions Witness Lee did use the term persons in relation to the three of the Divine Trinity.38 Geisler and Rhodes and those who signed the “Open Letter” with them address none of these.
Furthermore, over thirty years ago, in response to distortions of his teaching by certain members in the Christian countercult community, Witness Lee published three booklets correcting their errors and presenting the scriptural truth concerning the Trinity.39 In one of them Witness Lee provides the following exposition of Matthew 28:19:
The Lord says in Matthew 28:19, “Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Here the Lord speaks clearly of the three persons—the Father, Son, and Spirit. But when He speaks here of the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, the name which is used is in the singular number in the original text. This means that though the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three, yet the name is one. It is really mysterious—one name for three persons. This, of course, is what is meant by the expression three-in-one, or triune.40
The critics of Witness Lee and the local churches have never responded to any of the publications in which he speaks of all Three being God, all Three being eternal, Their eternal coexistence, and Their eternal coinherence. Instead, they have merely continued the same pattern of presenting single statements isolated from both their immediate context and the larger context of his extensive ministry on the subject of the Triune God. This pattern is evident both in the drafting of the “Open Letter” and in the article written by Geisler and Rhodes.
It is significant that the critique of Geisler and Rhodes does not even address the main theme of the book from which the quote in question is excised—The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man. The quote that Geisler and Rhodes criticize is in chapter 5 of that book. The first four chapters present an overview of the entire Bible from the perspective of God’s desire to enter into man as life and how He accomplishes that purpose. As Witness Lee shows convincingly, this concept lies at the center of the divine revelation. His goal throughout the book is to lead his audience not only into the objective understanding of this truth, but also into the subjective experience of Christ living in them (Gal. 2:20) and saving them in His life (Rom. 5:10) through the subjective experience of the cross (2 Cor. 4:10-12) and the fellowship of the divine life (1 John 1:2-3; 2 Cor. 13:14). This type of speaking is in the character of the New Testament ministry (2 Cor. 3:6; 4:1), not the vain contentions of words (1 Tim. 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:14) in which Geisler and Rhodes engage.
Conclusion
Geisler and Rhodes’ criticism of Witness Lee’s statement is deeply flawed. They insist on an unbiblical standard as a litmus test of orthodoxy. In doing so, they neglect the concerns of many Christian teachers that the term persons carries connotations that tend to lead to tritheism. Their criticism of referring to God as “one person” is contrary to the Bible and ignores the surrounding context that clearly defined the biblical basis of the expression and its meaning. Their criticism applies an uneven standard of truth and is contradicted by many respected teachers and ministers of the Lord, as well as their own writings. It also ignores the many thorough and balanced expositions concerning the Triune God in Witness Lee’s ministry and ignores the real nature and thrust of that ministry, which is to bring believers into the subjective experience of Christ.
Notes:
1“A Statement of Faith,” Affirmation & Critique, XIII:1, April 2008, p. 2. The full statement of faith can also be read at http://www.affcrit.com/st_faith.html.
2 Norman Geisler, Letter to Ron Kangas, June 1, 2008. Although Geisler claims to have sent such a letter, there is no evidence that Ron Kangas ever received it.
3Witness Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1996), p. 48
4Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement,” December 2009.
5Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), p. 155.
6Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907), p. 330.
7J. Scott Horrell, “The Eternal Son of God in the Social Trinity,” Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective, Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler, eds. (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2007), p. 52.
8Thomas Weinandy, The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), p. 111.
9John Wesley, “On the Trinity” (1775), Sermon 55, in The Works of John Wesley, vols. 5 and 6, 3rd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1872, 2002) pp. 200-201.
10Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), p. 19.
11H.R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913), p. 524.
12Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I:1: The Doctrine of the Word of God (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1936), p. 408.
13Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), pp. 42-43.
14Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans (1939, 1941), p. 87.
15Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, The Trinity: Global Perspectives (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), p. 30.
16As J. N. D. Kelly pointed out, the actual meaning of the word “Persons” as applied to the Trinity has undergone substantial change since it was introduced by Tertullian in “Against Praxeas” (see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1980), p. 598):
Hence, when he [Tertullian] speaks of the Son as being ‘of one substance’ with the Father, he means that They share the same divine nature or essence, and in fact, since the Godhead is indivisible, are one identical being. On the one hand the terms p??s?p?? and persona were admirably suited to express the otherness, or independent subsistence, of the Three. After originally meaning ‘face’, and so ‘expression’ and the ‘role’, the former came to signify ‘individual’, the stress being usually on the external aspect or objective presentation. The primary sense of persona was ‘mask’, from which the transition was easy to the actor who wore it and the character he played. In legal usage it could stand for the holder of the title to a property, but as employed by Tertullian it connoted the concrete presentation of an individual as such. In neither case, it should be noted, was the idea of self-consciousness nowadays associated with ‘person’ and ‘personal’ at all prominent. (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1817), p. 115)
17Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, translated by Matthew J. O’Connell (New York: Crossroad, 1994), p. 285.
18Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), pp. 159-160.
19W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology (London: Church Book Room Press, 1956), p. 31.
20Thomas Weinandy, The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), pp. 111-112.
21The following are a few among many examples: The Crucial Points of the Major Items of the Lord’s Recovery, chapters 1-3 of The Revelation and Vision of God, chapter 4 of Elders’ Training, Book 1: The Ministry of the New Testament, and chapter 7 of Young People’s Training. Some shorter examples are given in note 37.
22Norman Geisler, The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), p. 757.
23Norman Geisler, The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), p. 732.
24Millard J. Erickson, God the Father Almighty (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p. 231.
25Concerning the Greek word (ὀνομάτων) used in Acts 1:15, W. E. Vine writes: “As standing, by metonymy, for persons, Acts 1:15; Rev. 3:4; 11:13 (R.V., ‘persons’)” (Vine’s Exposition Dictionary of New Testament Words (McLean, VA: Macdonald Publishing, 1985), p. 782).
26Witness Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1996), p. 48. The elided text is the passage from W. H. Griffith Thomas’s book The Principles of Theology, which was previously cited (see note 17).
27Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1961), p. 229.
28Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), p. 180.
29Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II:1: The Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957), p. 284.
30Alvin Plantinga, The Analytic Theist, James F. Sennett, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998), p. 239.
31Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003), pp. 55-56.
32Billy Graham, The Journey: How to Live by Faith in an Uncertain World (Nashville, TN: W. Publishing Group, 2006), p. 20.
33Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 2: God, Creation (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003), p. 279.
34Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), p. 129. Nearly the exact same statement is made in Norman L. Geisler and A. Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), p. 250; and Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 2: God, Creation (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003), p. 280.
35Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), p. 118. The same sentence appears in Norman Geisler and R. E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Books, 1995), p. 351.
36Ron Rhodes, The Heart of Christianity (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996), p. 43.
37The following are a few short examples:
God is the Triune God. The one, unique God has the aspect of three—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all God and are eternal, coexistent, coinherent, and inseparable. – Witness Lee, Truth Lessons, Level 1, Volume 1 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1985), p. 23
Among the three of the Divine Trinity, there is distinction but no separation. The Father is distinct from the Son, the Son is distinct from the Spirit, and the Spirit is distinct from the Son and the Father. But we cannot say that They are separate, because They coinhere, that is, They live within one another. In Their coexistence the three of the Godhead are distinct, but Their coinherence makes them one. They coexist in Their coinherence, so They are distinct but not separate. – Witness Lee, The Crucial Points of the Major Items of the Lord’s Recovery (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1993), pp. 10-11
Modalism stresses the side of God being one to a heretical extreme by denying the coexistence and coinherence of the three of the Godhead. Tritheism, on the other hand, stresses the side of God being three to a heretical extreme by teaching that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three Gods. The Bible is not at either of these extremes; it stands in the center, testifying of the twofoldness of the truth of the Divine Trinity. Regarding the truth of the Triune God, we also should be balanced and avoid the heretical extremes of both modalism and tritheism. – Ibid., p. 14
We need to be very clear concerning the error in modalism. Modalism teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not all eternal and do not all exist at the same time. Instead, modalism claims that the revelation of the Son ended with the ascension and that after the ascension the Son ceased to exist. Modalism has gone too far, not believing in the coinherence and coexistence of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Unlike the modalists, we believe in the coinherence and coexistence of the three of the Godhead; that is, we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit all exist at the same time and under the same conditions. We also believe that all three are eternal. Isaiah 9:6 says that the Father is eternal, Hebrews 1:12 and 7:3 indicate that the Son is eternal, and Hebrews 9:14 speaks of the eternal Spirit. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not temporary but eternal. – Witness Lee, The Conclusion of the New Testament, Messages 221-239 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1988), p. 2467
There are many far more extensive expositions on the Divine Trinity, including the first four chapters of Witness Lee’s book The Revelation and Vision of God, in which he surveys the biblical truth; the expressions used in Western, Eastern, and Chinese theology; and the early church creeds.
38The following are two relatively short examples:
The oneness of the church is the unity of the Spirit which is comprised of the Triune God. Here in Ephesians chapter four, the seven one’s are divided into three groups, and every group has one of the three Persons of the Godhead. In the first group, we see the Spirit, in the second the Lord, and in the third God the Father. In group one, there is the Body, the Spirit and the hope. Then with the second group we see the Lord, the faith and the baptism. And the last group contains God the Father. With the Spirit is the Body and the hope. With the Lord is the faith and baptism. Then there is God the Father of all who is above all, through all, and in all. The Godhead in three Persons is our oneness which is realized in the Spirit. – Witness Lee, The Practical Expression of the Church (Los Angeles: The Stream Publishers, 1970), pp. 42-43
In His economy, God is three—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The great theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries referred to the Three of the Trinity as three hypostases. The primary sense of the Greek word for hypostasis is something which stands underneath, that is, a support or a foundation. To illustrate, one table has four legs supporting it, and the four legs of the table are its four hypostases. Likewise, there is one God, but He is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These three—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—are the three divine hypostases. The word hypostasis, which was used in the theological writings that appeared in the Greek language, can also be translated substance. Later, when theology entered into the Latin language, the word persona was used. Then, in the English language, the term became person. Thus, it is said that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons. However, we should not understand this to mean that They are three separate persons according to the common understanding of the word person. – Witness Lee, A Brief Presentation of the Lord’s Recovery (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1990), p. 9
39Concerning the Triune God—The Father, the Son, and the Spirit; The Revelation of the Triune God According to the Pure Word of the Bible; and What a Heresy—Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-giving Spirits, and Three Gods!
40Witness Lee, Concerning the Triune God—The Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Los Angeles, CA: The Stream, 1973), pp. 6-7.
Repeating False Witness Concerning SCP Bankruptcy
A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches
Read this document as a PDF
In an article attacking the Christian Research Institute’s reassessment of the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches, Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes make the following statement:
It is a fact that the litigations [sic1] of the LC drove a major countercult movement called Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) into bankruptcy.2
Although this version of events has been long accepted and promoted by those in the tightly knit circle of the countercult community, the facts do not support this claim. SCP claimed they were unable to proceed to trial because their litigation attorney, Michael J. Woodruff, withdrew on the eve of the trial over unpaid bills, and they could not afford the trial costs. In fact, a review of the available data casts substantial doubt on this claim.
SCP’s general operating budget increased substantially during the litigation, and only a small amount of their income was used to pay legal expenses. This raises questions as to whether some of the money given to support SCP’s legal needs was used to grow SCP’s operating budget. Support for this hypothesis can be found in correspondence between Neil Duddy, author of The God-Men, and SCP. A review of the available evidence, which Geisler and Rhodes have clearly not done, suggests that if SCP and its legal counsel had desired to proceed to trial, there should have been adequate financial resources available to do so.
The Facts Concerning SCP’s Income and Expenses
Throughout the course of the litigation over The God-Men, SCP maintained separate accounts for their “ministry” and their legal costs.3During the litigation, SCP made frequent appeals for funds for its legal defense.4 During the period of time in which they repeatedly stated that they were short of funds to defend themselves, their operating budget increased at least fourfold. Consider the following:
- In their September-November 1979 Newsletter, which was published prior to the litigation, SCP stated that their average monthly expenditure for the previous year had been slightly more than $11,300.5
- In their March-April 1984 Newsletter, SCP said that their expenditures from the “ministry” funds for the preceding November and December had averaged over $44,300 per month,6 nearly four times SCP’s average monthly expenditures from 1979, just over four years earlier. That would represent a 40% annualized growth rate. This is consistent with other available financial data from SCP.7 At the same time SCP claimed its resources were being drained by The God-Men litigation, it had increased its “ministry” expenditures fourfold.
- A financial statement for January 1985 showed SCP spent $88,000 for “ministry” expenses.8
Financial statements from the same period show that SCP’s legal expenses were consistently small in comparison with their overall budget. For example:
- SCP’s legal expenses from March 1, 1984, through the end of 1984 averaged a little over $9,000 per month or approximately 1/5 of their monthly ministry budget.9
- In January 1985, SCP spent slightly more than $18,200 on legal expenses as compared with $88,000 for “ministry” expenses.10 Thus, even as the trial date approached, SCP was still spending less than 20% of its budget on legal expenses. As noted previously, SCP’s operating budget for the same month was double what it had been just over one year earlier. This is especially significant as it followed several seemingly desperate appeals for financial support to defray their legal costs and preceded their bankruptcy declaration by just one month.
The substantial increases in SCP’s operating budget and the disparity between that growth and the amounts spent on legal expenses during a time of repeated appeals for donations to their legal defense fund suggest that SCP may have used some of the increased contributions they received as the result of litigation-related appeals to grow their “ministry” and not to defray their legal expenses.11 It appears that unless contributions that were specifically designated for SCP’s legal defense fund, they were put into SCP’s general fund. Such inferences, which SCP’s own financial statements seem to support, are reinforced by contemporaneous correspondence between one of the principals in The God-Men case and SCP.
Neil Duddy’s Accusations of Financial Mismanagement
Neil Duddy, the primary author of The God-Men, charged SCP with redirecting funds specifically given for legal defense. On June 6, 1982, Duddy wrote to an SCP employee who had complained about SCP mismanagement, saying:
SCP directors broke SCP by-laws, mismanaged funds, broke the law by using monies from the local church legal fund (any contributor to that fund could sue and win hands down in the next six years) to cover other expenditures and enriched themselves while ignoring the needs of other staff.12
On July 15, 1982, having not received a satisfactory response to concerns he had raised in 1981,13 Duddy wrote a 17-page letter to David Brooks, president of SCP’s Board of Trustees, and Michael Woodruff, SCP’s counsel for The God-Men litigation, detailing his complaints. In that letter he said:
There are three grounds of concern that make our relation to the SCP thread thin. First, SCP bylaws have been broken by the SCP directors. Second, biblical ethics have been ignored. Third, business standards as supported by the laws governing the SCP corporation have been broken.14
Duddy alleged that $6,000 from an early contribution to SCP’s legal defense fund from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State had been used to pay for a remodeling overrun. He also indicated that the practice of redirecting funds designated for legal defense to instead pay for salaries and operating expenses was ongoing:
Second, in violation of the state law and the language of the ad soliciting funds for the Local Church defense, [name deleted] used large amounts of money from that fund to cover operating expenses for the SCP. Even in October, after I had informed [name deleted] that such borrowing was illegal (as had Woodruff), he still approached the bookkeeper for money from that fund to pay operating expenses…15
In a letter dated February 9, 1983, Duddy wrote that The God-Men was an “exercise in hypocrisy” on the part of SCP based on what he felt was SCP’s own financial mismanagement.16
On May 31, 1983, a full ten and a half months after Duddy’s letter to him dated July 15, 1982, David Brooks testified that although he had no reason to doubt Duddy’s truthfulness, no one on the Board of Trustees or within SCP had investigated whether Duddy’s charges were true, and the Board of Trustees had taken no action on them.17 If Duddy’s account is trustworthy, then SCP was not crippled by an inability to pay for its legal defense but had instead misappropriated funds given for that defense.
In a statement dated June 29, 1983, the first day of Duddy’s deposition in The God-Men case, Duddy stated that six other SCP staff members, a majority of SCP’s staff, had supported his concerns about SCP’s financial mismanagement, but that those concerns had been “brushed aside.” He also stated that SCP’s directors had initially adopted his proposal requesting a reconciliation process involving “examining and correcting the direction of SCP leadership.” However, SCP management subsequently cancelled that agreement and “forced the resignation of SCP staff who supported my memo asking for an arbitrated reconciliation and precipitated the resignation of other staff who also supported my perspective.”18
The Facts Concerning SCP’s Unpaid Legal Defense Bills
SCP told both the media and the bankruptcy court that it was forced into bankruptcy because its lead attorney, Michael Woodruff, withdrew over unpaid legal bills mere days before the trial was scheduled to begin. In addition to the observations already made, this claim is suspect for the following reasons:
- SCP’s deficit in its legal defense fund was essentially unchanged for the entire year prior to their bankruptcy declaration. It was over $77,500 on February 29, 198419 and $73,000 as of February 12, 1985.20 Thus, SCP’s deficit in its legal defense fund was not increasing.21 In a letter dated April 1984, Bill Squires, SCP’s Director of Special Projects (including their legal defense) told supporters that “through your sustained giving, our Legal Fund is surviving financially.”22
- SCP’s operating budget in January 1985 was double the average for March-April 1984,23 an increase of $44,000. Had these additional funds been applied to pay their legal bills, the outstanding balance would have been reduced by almost 60%. Instead, as the trial date approached, SCP chose to spend these funds on their “ministry” rather than on their legal defense.
- Michael Woodruff stated to the bankruptcy court that he would have been willing to proceed if SCP could come up with $50,000 to finance the defense of the case.24 The $44,000 cited above represents almost 90% of that total. Two weeks before the trial date SCP also told supporters that they needed $50,000 to go to trial.25 This was actually less than SCP’s projected cost of $50,000 to $100,000 to implement its proposed bankruptcy reorganization plan26 and was substantially the same as the amount SCP offered for settlement of the case.27
- In their March 18, 1985, financial statement filed with the bankruptcy court, SCP indicated that they had already paid their bankruptcy lawyers $15,000, money that also could have gone toward paying down what they owed their litigation counsel had they desired to do so.28
- Michael Woodruff had a longstanding relationship with SCP that extended beyond merely providing professional services for hire and was an active participant in the countercult movement.29 It strains credulity to believe that he unilaterally withdrew, leaving SCP high and dry on the eve of the trial that they had recently promised would be a great victory.
- Had SCP won the case in court, they could have sought to recover legal expenses, which would have more than compensated Woodruff for staying the course. That SCP understood this fact is evident from a statement by Bill Squires in SCP’s Legal Update dated January 18, 1985:
What will happen if we win? Will SCP get any of this money back from the plaintiffs? Many of you have asked us this question.
The answer is “Yes!”
We believe we are going to win this case. And if we do, the three plaintiffs … will be required by law to repay SCP (at minimum) a substantial portion of our expenses.30The fact that they ultimately chose not to proceed to trial indicates that Woodruff and SCP knew they were going to lose the case despite their public bravado to the contrary.
It is also significant that the last deposition taken in the course of The God-Men litigation was demanded by SCP and conducted on February 25, 1985, a mere week before the scheduled trial date. On the same day SCP submitted a list of expert witnesses through Michael Woodruff, giving every indication that both SCP and Woodruff intended to proceed to trial. On February 26, a settlement conference failed when SCP made a monetary offer similar to its previous one. SCP later blamed the representatives of the local churches for not being willing to set a dollar figure,31 but the sticking point was actually that SCP refused to discuss language concerning retracting accusations of impropriety made in the book. On March 1, SCP’s Board of Trustees voted to declare bankruptcy.32 The bankruptcy papers were filed on March 4, the day the trial court was to convene to schedule the trial. If SCP had desired to continue to pursue their legal defense, they could have sought a delay of the trial date to enable them to raise more funds.
What the Facts Mean
The available evidence does not support the contention that Geisler and Rhodes declare as fact. What can be said is this: During The God-Men litigation, SCP’s defense became a cause célèbre in Christian countercult circles. Their revenues increased substantially over the course of the lawsuit. However, most of the increase in their revenues did not go toward the legal defense; it went to a several-fold increase of their “ministry” budget, which included salaries and operating expenses.
As the trial date approached, SCP was faced with the daunting prospect of a major embarrassment—losing a highly visible libel suit that exposed the recklessness of their publication. Given the evidence from the depositions (including their own) that was used to support the judge’s decision when the libel action was adjudicated, this is clearly the case.33 SCP had repeatedly appealed to supporters for money to fight the case; losing in court would have irreparably damaged their credibility, which would in turn have undermined their financial viability in the long term. Rather than run that risk, they declared preemptory bankruptcy. This conclusion is in line with the statement of SCP’s bankruptcy attorney Iain Macdonald:
Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Inc. commenced a voluntary chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court located in Oakland, California on March 4, 1985. The case was filed shortly before the matter of Witness Lee et al v. SCP et al was scheduled to do [sic, s/b go] to trial, and was filed for the purpose of preventing the trial from going forward.34 [emphasis added]
The entire tone of the article by Geisler and Rhodes betrays an “us vs. them” mentality rather than a concern for truth. Both men have strong ties to strident countercult ministries, a fact which Geisler and Rhodes do not disclose to their readers,35 and it appears that these ties may have predisposed them to uncritically accept SCP’s version of events. Geisler and Rhodes certainly provided no factual basis from the available financial statements, court documents, or bankruptcy filings for their claim of “fact.”
Furthermore, Geisler and Rhodes completely ignore what led to the litigation—SCP’s reckless and baseless charges of pathological social behaviors and financial malfeasance combined with their intransigence in response to appeals for dialogue. Geisler and Rhodes seem to feel that countercultists should have free license to spread rumors without verifying them as factual and without regard to the impact their words have on people’s lives. We cannot agree.
Notes:
1There was only one litigation between any of the local churches and SCP, and only one local church was a party to that litigation.
2Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement,” posted with the “Open Letter” at open-letter.org.
3See e.g., SCP Newsletter, vol. 10, no. 2, March-April 1984, p. 4.
4For example, SCP Legal Case Update, April 1983; Witness Lee vs. SCP, May 5, 1983; Legal Update, No. 2, June 16, 1983; Legal Update, No. 3, July 31, 1983; SCP Newsletter, Vol. 9, No. 5, November-December 1983; Legal Update, No. 5, December 1983; SCP Letter, January 27, 1984; SCP Newsletter, Vol. 10, No. 2, March-April 1984; Legal Update, No. 6, March 1984; Legal Update, No. 8, June 1984; Legal Update, No. 9, August 10, 1984; Legal Update, No. 10, September 20, 1984; Legal Update, November 21, 1984; Legal Update, January 18, 1985; SCP Letter, February 20, 1985.
5SCP Newsletter, vol. 5, no. 6, September-November 1979, p. 2. SCP’s fiscal year ran from November 1 to October 31.
6SCP Newsletter, vol. 10, no. 2, March-April 1984, p. 4.
7SCP’s Schedule of Current Income and Expenditures dated March 18, 1985, showed that in the previous six months, SCP had an average monthly income of $48,981.21 and average monthly expenditures of $49,709.10. Of those expenditures only an average of $7,077.28 per month went to legal expenses, less than one-seventh of the total. Thus, during this period SCP’s operating expenditures were equivalent to over $500,000 on an annual basis.
8All figures from Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Monthly Operating Report for Period Ending March 31, 1985.
9Based on a comparison for SCP Legal Update, March 1984, p. 3 (reporting expenditures as of February 29, 1984), and SCP Legal Update, January 18, 1985, p. 4 (reporting expenditures as of December 31, 1984).
10All figures from Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Monthly Operating Report for Period Ending March 31, 1985.
11On May 20, 1983, the Executive Director of SCP informed the Board of Trustees that SCP received $21,000 in one week in response to an appeal for legal defense funds. Of that amount 60% was designated to legal defense. While this sampling is too small to draw definitive conclusions, it is in line with the hypothesis that a substantial share of the donations to SCP during the course of the litigation was intended for its legal defense, in particular following their appeals for such funds.
12Letter from Neil Duddy to Stanley Dokupil, June 6, 1982. On October 17, 1981, Duddy had written a memo to SCP’s executive committee in which he expressed concerns about SCP’s financial management practices. On the same day, five other SCP employees, including Dokupil, signed a letter to the executive committee which referenced Duddy’s memo and stated similar concerns with leadership and decision-making practices within SCP.
14Letter from Neil Duddy to David Brooks, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of SCP, and Michael Woodruff, SCP Counsel, July 15, 1982.
15Ibid.
16Letter from Neil Duddy to Charles Morgan, February 9, 1983.
17Deposition of David Brooks, Witness Lee et al v. Neil T. Duddy et al, May 31, 1983, pp. 32, 34.
18Neil Duddy, Deposition Statement, June 29, 1983, p. 8.
19SCP Legal Update, March 1984, p. 3.
20SCP News Release, February 12, 1985, p. 2.
21This is further attested by a comparison of figures in the SCP Legal Updates of March 1984 (p. 3) and January 19, 1985 (p. 4), which shows that in the last ten months of 1984, SCP received over $95,500 in contributions to its legal defense fund while amassing just over $92,000 in expenses.
22Bill Squires, Letter addressed to “Dear Friends of SCP,” April 1984.
23See numbers 2 and 3 in the section entitled “The Facts Concerning SCP’s Income and Expenses.”
24Declaration of Michael J. Woodruff in Support of SCP’s Opposition to Motion for Relief from Stay, April 16, 1985.
25“March 3 Prayer & Fasting,” SCP letter to supporters, February 20, 1985.
26Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Disclosure Statement, April 1, 1985, p. 13.
27Defendant’s Written Offer to Compromise on Pending Action (CCP §998), October 16, 1984, filed by Michael Woodruff.
28Statement of Financial Affairs for Debtor Engaged in Business, March 18, 1985, Attachment 7, p. 2.
29According to a letter to the editor from David Brooks, President of SCP’s Board of Trustees, which was printed on page 21 of the June 14, 1985, issue of Christianity Today, Woodruff had been providing legal services to SCP for more than 10 years. Woodruff was SCP’s attorney in a legal case that gave SCP a national reputation for opposing the teaching of Transcendental Meditation in public schools. (Since SCP built its following by filing a lawsuit, it seems hypocritical for them to have complained so bitterly when they were sued.) According to “Malnak v. Yogi: The New Age and the New Law,” by Sarah Barringer Gordon in Law & Religion, ed. by Leslie C. Griffin (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2010), p. 14:
[Brooks] Alexander and his fellow SCP activists promised the Malnaks [the lead plaintiffs in the case] they would come to New Jersey to assist with the brewing conflict there. As the Malnaks put it, “three guys came and lived in our house for months.” In addition to Alexander, they were Michael (Mike) Woodruff and Bill (Billy) Squires.
Woodruff’s name appears, along with nine SCP staff members, on a list of participants in a conference hosted by SCP in Berkeley on November 2-4, 1979, concerning how to effectively oppose cults on college campuses. He was a featured speaker on the subject of cults and the law on this and other occasions (e.g., at the University of Notre Dame in April 1981; to the Christian Legal Society in 1981; at California State University-Fullerton on October 27, 1982; at Trinity Episcopal School for the Ministry on April 14, 1986). He authored articles on the subject of “new religions” (e.g., in International Review of Mission, October 1978; in The Cult Observer on September 1984). He served on the Christian Legal Society Board of Directors. He vetted the pre-publication edition of the second English edition of The God-Men for InterVarsity Press. Perhaps most tellingly, in the conflict between Neil Duddy and SCP, Duddy “asked both Dr. Enroth and Woodruff that Woodruff not be the mediator of reconciliation because there were too many friendships involved” (Letter from Neil Duddy to David Brooks and Michael Woodruff, July 15, 1982). Read in this light, Brooks’ letter to the editor in Christianity Today appears to be an effort to mitigate the blame that had been placed on Woodruff for withdrawing from the case just before the trial was to begin.
30Bill Squires, Spiritual Counterfeits Project Legal Update, January 18, 1985, p. 2. The three plaintiffs in the case were Witness Lee, William Freeman, and the church in Anaheim.
31“Declaration of Michael J. Woodruff in Opposition to Motion for Relief from Stay,” April 18, 1985, p. 4: “I question whether the plaintiffs truly exercised good faith efforts to negotiate settlement with SCP because they refused on February 26, 1985 to disclose what amount of money it would take to settle the case since they wanted to be sure they had a retraction statement in a form agreeable to them first.” What Woodruff’s statement actually shows is that the plaintiffs were not interested in a mere financial settlement that allowed SCP to continue to make the same kind of libelous accusations they had in The God-Men. Rather the plaintiffs were seeking a proper admission that the allegations in the book were false.
32Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Corporate Resolution, March 1, 1985.
33The complete text of the judge’s decision with links to the supporting documentation cited in that decision is available at http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/god-men/decision/completeText.html.
34Karen Hoyt, “Letter to ‘Friends of SCP,’” April, 10, 1985, p. 3.
35For example, Rhodes was a Contributing Editor to the SCP Journal for approximately two years, and Geisler has contributed over 100 articles to John Ankerberg’s Web site and is on the advisory boards of several countercult organizations, some of which are known for their intemperance.
Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcast Excerpts
In December 2009, the Christian Research Institute (CRI) published an issue of the Christian Research Journal (now available in a special edition in several languages from CRI’s website) in which it reported some of the findings of a six-year primary research project concerning the teaching and practice of Witness Lee and the local churches. Hank Hanegraaff, President of CRI, participated in the research directly. He was aided by Elliot Miller, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, and Gretchen Passantino, co-founder and Director of Answers in Action (AIA) and co-author of some of the earliest printed material critical of Witness Lee and the local churches. Both before and after the special issue of the Journal was published, Hank Hanegraaff, Gretchen Passantino, and Elliot Miller discussed their research on the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast. In some of the broadcasts, Hanegraaff was joined by Andrew Yu and Chris Wilde, representatives of Living Stream Ministry, publisher of the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Video excerpts of those broadcasts are available on the following pages:
A Brief Affirmation of Living Stream Ministry
A Brief Affirmation of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee
The Normal Christian Life
The Importance of Proper Research and Apologetics Methods
Excerpts from Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcasts Concerning the Teaching and Practice of Witness Lee and the Local Churches
In these excerpts from broadcasts of the Bible Answer Man radio program, Hank Hanegraaff, President of the Christian Research Institute, and Elliot Miller, Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal, discuss the need of apologetics ministries to apply proper research and apologetic methods, including evaluating others’ statements in context, engaging in dialogue to gain proper understanding of others’ teachings, and avoiding presumptive use of loaded language such as the term cult in describing others:
Critics of the local churches have not engaged in dialogue with representatives of the churches nor have they fairly represented the corpus of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee’s ministry. Such dialogue and fairness should be the hallmarks of apologetics work but often are not. On January 5, 2010, Hank Hanegraaff and Elliot Miller discussed the importance of doing discernment ministry properly and the consequences of statements made in error.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, criticisms of the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches have typically relied upon short quotations divorced from their original context. On June 6, 2010, Hank Hanegraaff spoke about the importance of context in understanding others’ teachings.
In 1985, after extensive research into criticisms of the ministry of Witness Lee, Dr. J. Gordon Melton wrote an open letter in which he clearly demonstrated that The God-Men, an early book critical of the local churches, took statements from Witness Lee’s teaching out of context and made them say the opposite of his intent. Although Dr. Melton is generally considered to be an eminent authority on contemporary American religious movements, his open letter was largely ignored. On January 6, 2010, Elliot Miller spoke about Dr. Melton’s findings and the countercult community’s response.
In the same broadcast Elliot Miller remarked on the importance of dialogue in understanding others’ teachings and how dialogue with representatives of the local churches led the Christian Research Institute to reassess its earlier criticisms.
On the next day’s broadcast, speaking in the context of the history between CRI and the local churches, Elliot Miller described the barriers to dialogue created by calling a group a cult and commented on the initial reticence that he and Gretchen Passantino felt concerning the value of dialogue with the local churches. This was due to a long history of past conflicts between the churches and CRI. Elliot also discusses the change in their view that resulted after engaging in such dialogue.
Local Church Practices
Excerpts from Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcasts Concerning the Teaching and Practice of Witness Lee and the Local Churches
During their reassessment of the teaching and practice of Witness Lee and the local churches, Hank Hanegraaff, the President of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and host of the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast, and Elliot Miller, Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal, realized that certain scriptural practices they had observed in the local churches are potentially of great benefit to the entire Body of Christ. In particular, they were struck by the practices of pray-reading, in which the Bible is used as the content of prayer (Eph. 6:18), and prophesying, in which all of the members of the church practice speaking for and speaking forth Christ from God’s Word (1 Cor. 14:1, 3-5, 26). They speak of their impressions in the following excerpts from the Bible Answer Man radio broadcasts:
On September 8, 2008, Hank Hanegraaff commented on his realization that the local churches have “something to offer Western Christianity.”
On September 3, 2010, Hank spoke about the practice of prophesying, in which every believer has the opportunity to speak for Christ. He described this practice as “not prophesying in the sense of foretelling the future but in the 1 Corinthians 14 sense of edification and strengthening other believers.”
On January 6, 2010, Hank and Elliot Miller discussed the relationship between pray-reading as a means of equipping the believers and the practice of prophesying according to 1 Corinthians 14 as a means of mutual edification. Elliot described pray-reading as “immersing yourself in the Word of God in a way I’ve never seen people do before” and as a kind of meditation “which means to chew on the cud” [Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6]. It means to really turn something over and go at it from every direction and get every little bit of nutrition out of that piece of food.”
Criticism of the Open Letter
Excerpts from Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcasts Concerning the Teaching and Practice of Witness Lee and the Local Churches
In early 2007, a group of scholars and ministry leaders published “An Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the ‘Local Churches'” on the Internet. In it they included a series of short, out-of-context excerpts from the ministry of Witness Lee. Their presentation was a gross misrepresentation of Witness Lee’s teachings. The open letter addressed four issues—the Trinity, deification, the standing of the local church, and litigation. Representatives of Living Stream Ministry and the local churches have since produced three responses to the “Open Letter.” 1. To date, none of the signers of the “Open Letter” have made any substantive answer to these responses.
On January 5, Hank Hanegraaff and Elliot Miller discussed the open letter and how seventy Christian scholars and ministry leaders could be wrong. Elliot described the early research done by CRI and commented, “That they [the open letter signers] would be wrong only follows since they’re building their conclusions on our original work, and we were wrong.”
In the same broadcast, Elliot Miller spoke about the local churches’ teaching on the Trinity. He said that Western Christianity tends to oversimplify the Trinity while the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches “actually are bringing a correction to a problem within Western evangelicalism.”
On the same program, Elliot commented on the local churches’ teaching on deification. He said, “Witness Lee says, on the one hand, the New Testament reveals that the Godhead is unique and that only God alone who has the Godhead should be worshipped. On the other hand, the New Testament reveals that we believers in Christ have God’s life and nature, that we are becoming God in life and nature but will never have His Godhead.” Elliot then discusses some of the implications of this statement and concludes, “They’re talking about things that we ourselves believe in.”
On June 10, 2010, Hank spoke about the local churches’ affirmation of a famous axiom of Athanasius, an early church father sometimes called “the father of orthodoxy,” that “God became man to make man God,” saying that it is a double standard to accuse Witness Lee of heresy when Athanasius affirms the same thing. Furthermore, Hank says, “The Apostle Peter would be suspect for stating that we are partakers of the divine nature.”
On January 6, 2010, Elliot Miller explained the teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee concerning the proper standing of a local church.
In the same broadcast, Elliot and Hank discussed the litigation over the book The God-Men produced by Neil Duddy and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) and the actual damages caused by being falsely accused of being a cult.
Notes:
- A Brief Response to “An Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the ‘Local Churches’”;
- A Longer Response to “An Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the ‘Local Churches’”; and
- A Defense of Seventeen Quotations from the Ministry of Witness Lee.
All audio clips are © Christian Research Institute and used by permission.
Persecution in China
Excerpts from Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcasts Concerning the Teaching and Practice of Witness Lee and the Local Churches
As part of their research concerning the teachings and practice of Witness Lee and the local churches, Hank Hanegraaff, President of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and host of the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast; Gretchen Passantino, co-founder and Director of Answers in Action (AIA); and Elliot Miller, Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal, all traveled to China to observe the local churches there. They met with believers from the local churches, some of whom had suffered persecution as a result of statements made in the U.S. by Christian countercult ministries. In the following excerpts from various Bible Answer Man broadcasts, they discuss their experiences:
On January 5, 2010, Elliot Miller described his experience of meeting with Christians in the local churches in China. There he saw a revival that was not just emotional but was grounded in orthodox theology, and he recalled the strong moving of the Spirit of God in the gospel that was evident in China. He said, “What I saw was a much more faithful expression of Christianity, and I began to see that this could be the best hope for the church in the future. As the lights are going out in the West, they are starting to brighten up in the East and you have some very dedicated disciples of Christ.”
Research Conclusions
Excerpts from Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcasts Concerning the Teaching and Practice of Witness Lee and the Local Churches
The following excerpts from the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast hosted by Hank Hanegraaff speak to the scope of the team’s research and the basic conclusions they reached:
The dialogue between the local churches and CRI began in 2003 when Hank Hanegraaff, Gretchen Passantino, and Elliot Miller sat down with representatives of Living Stream Ministry (LSM), which publishes the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, and of the local churches. The meeting began with the representatives of LSM and the local churches presenting what they preach and teach as the common faith. On his January 5, 2010, broadcast, Hank Hanegraaff testified of the “stirring affirmations” of orthodox Christian teaching that they heard in this first meeting. He also described the extent of CRI’s research leading to their reassessment and publication of the “We Were Wrong” issue of the Christian Research Journal.
In the same broadcast Hank Hanegraaff testified that in his visits to local churches in various parts of the world, he saw “authentic New Testament Christianity in action.”
Beginning in the early 1970s Gretchen Passantino was one of the early critics of the local churches and of Witness Lee. On the June 12, 2007, Bible Answer Man broadcast, Gretchen spoke about the CRI research team’s reassessment of the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches, concluding that it is “well within Christian orthodoxy” and that the members of the churches are “our brothers and sisters in Christ.”
A Confirmation of the Gospel: Concerning the Teaching of the Local Churches and Living Stream Ministry
This book contains material related to the extended dialogue that representatives of Living Stream Ministry (LSM) and the local churches held with a panel of Fuller Theological Seminary faculty members. This material includes:
- A statement prepared by the LSM editorial section addressing key issues that were points of emphasis in that dialogue. These points include an affirmation of the common faith and explanations of the teachings of LSM and the local churches concerning, among other things:
- the Trinity,
- the identification of Christ with the life-giving Spirit,
- the two natures of Christ,
- God’s full salvation, and
- the genuine ground of oneness.
There is also a section describing the way the local churches meet together and seek to serve the Lord;
- A statement issued by Fuller Theological Seminary explaining their key findings as a result of their study.
Read this publication
Motion for Rehearing
This document is the official Motion for Rehearing submitted to the Texas Supreme Court on part of the plaintiffs in Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al after the Texas Court of Appeals ruled to overturn earlier District Court rulings and grant summary judgment in favor of Harvest House Publishers, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon. The motion explains the importance of the case in both jurisprudential and practical terms and also contests the reasons given by Harvest House against review. Furthermore, it reiterates that the plaintiffs’ action is based upon the false categorization of the local churches as a cult in the secular, not religious, sense of the term.
Motion for Rehearing
Amicus Brief from Cult Experts (U.S. Supreme Court)
Three organizations and four individuals filed this amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of the appeal of The Local Church, Living Stream Ministry, et al for relief from defamation in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, published by Harvest House Publishing. The brief argued that:
- The court of appeals’ decision that the term cult is not capable of defamatory meaning, even when criminal and abhorrent conduct is ascribed to those labeled with that term, allows religion to be used as a cloak for defamation;
- The Supreme Court should clarify that falsely labeling a group a “cult” in a theological sense should not be actionable, but falsely labeling a group a “cult” in a secular
sense should be; and - The Establishment Clause did not apply in the case because those labeled “cults” in ECNR were so labeled not merely in a theological sense but also in the secular
sense of the term, and the plaintiffs’ claims were based on the secular usage.
The signers of the amicus were recognized experts in the field of countercult apologetics:
- Christian Research Institute (CRI) and its president, Hank Hanegraaff
- Answers in Action (AIA) and its director, Gretchen Passantino
- Neighboring Faiths Project and its co-director John Morehead
- Ruth A. Tucker
Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Texas Supreme Court Decision
December 12, 2006
On August 2, 2006, Living Stream Ministry (LSM) and 93 local churches petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to review the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals concerning the libel case brought by these churches and LSM against Harvest House Publishers and authors John Ankerberg and John Weldon regarding the book Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR). On December 1, 2006 the Court declined to consider that request.
The plaintiff churches and LSM felt constrained to petition the Texas Supreme Court because the decision of the Texas Appeals Court was seriously flawed and did not take into consideration the evidence or facts of the case. The ruling of the Appeals Court was based on faulty technical, legal grounds, and not on the facts of the case, which we continue to believe would be very compelling if ever presented to a jury. Furthermore, that ruling also raised issues that could have far-reaching implications for all manner of Christian and other religious groups in the future by creating a vehicle whereby libel and defamation can be protected under the guise of “religious speech.” This potential still exists, and it may in fact be strengthened by the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court. Therefore, we plan to ask the Texas Supreme Court to reconsider their decision within the next few days. Beyond that, we are still prayerfully considering whether or not to appeal this case to the next level.
We believe that from the beginning we have followed the Lord’s leading and regard all that has happened as being under His sovereign hand. Throughout this process, He has led us to gratifying fraternity and fellowship with many other followers of Christ who have patiently and earnestly looked into both the complex legal aspects of this case and the teachings and practices of the local churches.
Several of these are well-respected Christian leaders, and a number have been severely criticized—both publicly and privately—for taking a principled and courageous stand with us for the truth. We have been encouraged by and are grateful for their steadfast support in this effort—even at great personal cost. To all our friends and supporters who have stood with us both publicly and behind the scenes, we offer our deepest gratitude.
While we are disappointed by the Texas Supreme Court’s unwillingness to consider this case further, neither that decision nor the previous ruling of the Texas Court of Appeals vindicate or validate the things written in ECNR. The Supreme Court has chosen simply not to consider the matter. As for the Appeals Court, their primary conclusion was that the complained of language in the book could not be construed as applying to the local churches or Living Stream Ministry. Harvest House has also publicly stated that they never intended for the abhorrent conduct detailed in the introduction to apply to Living Stream Ministry or the local churches.
Yet, the fact remains that many people have attributed, and will continue to attribute, the egregious accusations made in the book’s introduction to Living Stream Ministry and the local churches. As a result, many believers, especially in countries that do not enjoy the same degree of religious freedom that we do in America, are suffering for their faith.
Therefore, we respectfully call upon Harvest House to align their actions with their public statements and do the right thing. If they sincerely believe, as they have repeatedly proclaimed, that the things written in ECNR were not intended to apply to Living Stream Ministry and the local churches, they should remove any mention of Living Stream Ministry and the local churches from ECNR and any future publications that make similar allegations. We hope that they would take this action for the sake of the unity of Body of Christ and for the welfare of innocent believers everywhere who have suffered as an unintended result of that book. We also hope our brothers and sisters throughout the Christian community will join us in this plea.
Background on this case, including copies of official court documents
The entire statement is available in Adobe format here.
The Local Churches: “Genuine Believers and Fellow Members of the Body of Christ”
This book contains statements from leaders of three prominent Christian organizations concerning the orthodoxy of the local churches:
- Hank Hanegraaff, President of the Christian Research Institute (CRI),
- Gretchen Passantino, Director of Answers in Action (AIA), and
- Fuller Theological Seminary, represented by:
- President Richard Mouw,
- Dean of Theology Howard Loewen, and
- Professor of Systematic Theology Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen
Their statements affirm that those in the local churches are, in the words of the Fuller scholars, “genuine believers and fellow members of the Body of Christ.”
Read this publication
Select Quotes:
Hank Hanegraaff, President, Christian Research Institute:
“First, the local churches are not a cult from a theological perspective…. Furthermore, the local churches are not a cult from a sociological perspective…. Finally, the local churches are an authentic expression of New Testament Christianity. Moreover, as a group forged in the cauldron of persecution, it has much to offer Western Christianity.”
Gretchen Passantino, Founder and Director, Answers in Action:
“The local churches are a legitimate, theologically orthodox, spiritually faithful involvement by means of which your offspring can develop genuine Christian commitment and maturity.”
“The most significant re-assessment from my career concerns the teachings and practices of a movement of Christians with its origins in China popularly described as the local churches, founded under the teachings of the two Christians from China, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.”
“Church life in the local churches is primarily distinguished from typical American evangelicalism because of the local churches’ attempts to experience church as they think it was in the New Testament.”
“A Christian believer who joins the local churches will find sound theology, enriching worship, challenging discipleship, and enthusiastic evangelism opportunities. After 40 years of Christian faith, I have not lost my ‘first love’ of Jesus Christ. I recognize that same vibrant Spirit in the local churches.”
Fuller Theological Seminary:
“Fuller conducted a thorough review and examination of the major teachings and practices of the local churches.”
“It is the conclusion of Fuller Theological Seminary that the teachings and practices of the local churches and its members represent the genuine, historical, biblical Christian faith in every essential aspect.”
“Particularly, the teachings of Witness Lee have been grossly misrepresented and therefore most frequently misunderstood in the general Christian community, especially among those who classify themselves as evangelicals. We consistently discovered that when examined fairly in the light of scripture and church history, the actual teachings in question have significant biblical and historical credence. Therefore, we believe that they deserve the attention and consideration of the entire Body of Christ.”
“Moreover, we also can say with certainty that no evidence of cultic or cult-like attributes have been found by us among the leaders of the ministry or the members of the local churches who adhere to the teachings represented in the publications of Living Stream Ministry. Consequently, we are easily and comfortably able to receive them as genuine believers and fellow members of the Body of Christ, and we unreservedly recommend that all Christian believers likewise extend to them the right hand of fellowship.”
For more information concerning these dialogues and their outcomes, please refer to: