Author Archive: DCPPress

The Local Churches: “Genuine Believers and Fellow Members of the Body of Christ”

Posted on by
the-local-churches

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


PDF
Web ePub


PDF en
PDF zh
PDF ko
PDF es

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:

A Brief History of the Relationship with Hank Hanegraaff and CRI

Posted on by

In the 1970s, many evangelicals became concerned by the incursion of Eastern religions into Western society, particularly on the college campuses in America. The modern countercult movement emerged as a part of evangelical Christianity’s response to combat this perceived threat. The leading apologetics ministry was the Christian Research Institute (CRI), then headed by the late Walter Martin. In the mid-1970s some young researchers associated with CRI were tasked with assessing the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches. At the time, due to a variety of reasons, these researchers failed to grasp the truths that Witness Lee was teaching and decided that his teaching was either confused or heretical. When their criticisms became public in speaking and in print, members of the local churches responded by writing a series of articles to defend the teachings and practices criticized by CRI. Over the course of the next 25 years there were several attempts to establish more profitable dialogue between CRI and representatives of Living Stream Ministry (LSM) and of the local churches. Because of various circumstances, these attempts failed and the public stance of CRI remained critical of Witness Lee and the local churches.

A New Dialogue

In 2003, Living Stream Ministry and the local churches embarked on a new dialogue with representatives of CRI, two of whom had been key participants in the earlier research. To their credit, the CRI staff quickly recognized the need to reassess their previous research. With their broader and deeper understanding of truths such as the economic and essential Trinity, the coinherence of the Three of the divine Trinity, and the extent of God’s complete salvation, they drew entirely new conclusions. They concluded that the local churches represent “an authentic expression of New Testament Christianity.”

A Thorough Reassessment

As a result of this reassessment, CRI withdrew its earlier criticisms of Witness Lee and the local churches. Three participants in these dialogues—Hank Hanegraaff, current President of CRI; Elliot Miller, editor-in-chief of the Christian Research Journal; and Gretchen Passantino, co-founder and director of Answers in Action (AIA) and research and author for the early CRI publications on Witness Lee and the local churches—each made public statements that CRI’s earlier findings were erroneous. The following sources contain some of their statements:

  • “Apologetics Conclusions Reconsidered… A Case in Point: The Local Churches & Living Stream Ministry,” a statement by Gretchen Passantino.

  • A foreword to The Local Churches: “Genuine Believers and Fellow Members of the Body of Christ” written by Hank Hanegraaff. This book also contains “The Local Churches: a Genuine Christian Movement,” by Gretchen Passantino.

  • An issue of the Christian Research Journal dedicated to CRI’s reassessment of the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches which on its cover declares: “We Were Wrong“. This issue contains Elliot Miller’s extensive analysis of the biblical basis and theological grounding of Witness Lee’s teachings on the nature of God and the nature of man. Elliot Miller’s article also examines the the standing of the local churches and the reasons behind their appeal to the courts for relief from libelous accusations. This issue of the Christian Research Journal also contains unequivocal statements by Hank Hanegraaff and Gretchen Passantino concerning the orthodoxy of the faith professed and practiced by the local churches.

In addition, Hank Hanegraaff has dedicated several broadcasts of his Bible Answer Man radio program to CRI’s reassessment of the teachings of Living Stream Ministry and the local churches, including interviews with Elliot Miller, Gretchen Passantino, and representatives of LSM and the churches. Two of these broadcasts—from January 5 and 6, 2010—are available in their entirety on a CD from CRI. Excerpts from those broadcasts are available on YouTube.

A Letter to Our Friends

Posted on by

[Note: Subheadings have been added to enhance readability.]

To our many friends and interested parties who have followed the developments in the libel case filed by Living Stream Ministry and 95 local churches against the authors and publisher of Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR), we would like to offer some comments following the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court not to grant review of the Texas Court of Appeals’ decision.

Background to the Litigation

First, this decision brings to an end the long legal struggle that began more than five years ago, when Harvest House Publishers initiated legal action against us by filing suit in Oregon on December 14, 2001, while we were still seeking an amicable resolution to our dispute. With the statute of limitations running out, we had no option to seek redress except to file a libel suit against them and the authors of ECNR in Houston, Texas, on December 31, 2001. Their suit in Oregon was dismissed by the district court. Our suit continued forward in Texas, and on three separate occasions, two district court judges denied the defendants’ attempts to have our case thrown out. It was these denials that Harvest House then appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals.

The Texas Court of Appeals Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals overturned the three previous decisions of the lower court and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We felt that both the decision itself and, more particularly, the grounds cited for that decision were seriously flawed and opened the door for potentially grievous abuse of honored provisions in our constitution – the protection of genuine religious speech, the free exercise of religion as embodied in the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and the guarantee of equal protection under the law. In fact, the Texas Court of Appeals’ decision has already been criticized by a federal district court in Wisconsin.

To explain the core issue at stake: by throwing out our case because it was a “religious” dispute despite the presence of accusations of secular crimes, the Court of Appeals created a more difficult barrier to overcome for religious entities who desire to protect themselves from defamation.

According to the Texas ruling, if one party accuses another party with allegations of grotesque and extreme criminal behavior—but does it in a “religious” context—it cannot be found liable for the damages it caused. The effect of this precedent is to deny smaller religious groups the most basic constitutional protections. Rather than strengthening the protection of religious speech, as the other side has repeatedly claimed, this ruling actually harms religious speech by creating a double standard of “religious immunity” for larger publishers while penalizing smaller religious groups who can no longer exercise their right to preserve their reputation and religious freedom. Parties with religious convictions who are defamed with criminal attributions in “religious” writings must now endure such false allegations without the benefit of the protection of laws against defamation.

We believe, as do many constitutional scholars and religious experts, that this sets an extremely dangerous precedent for the future. If authors and publishers such as those responsible for ECNR now are given free rein to attack, with the intent to destroy any and all ministries with which they may disagree doctrinally, then we can well expect to see more of such calculated and academically irresponsible publications. Additionally, this ruling does a great disservice to Christian publishing and has the potential to lower the standard of an important segment of the publishing community that has worked very hard in recent years to lift its standards to match or exceed those of the secular publishing world.

Our Appeal

These compelling factors prompted us to appeal the decision of the Texas Appeals Court to the Texas Supreme Court and, subsequently, to the United States Supreme Court as our court of last resort. Unfortunately, both the Texas Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Since these reviews are discretionary, in neither instance can it accurately be said that those courts disagreed with our arguments. It simply means that the issues presented in the appeal did not fall within their interest. This could have been for any number of reasons, including not having adequate time on their crowded schedules. Whatever the reason for the denials in these instances, we believe that it is only a matter of time until this question will be picked up by high courts—both state and federal—as the important and potentially dangerous issues highlighted by this case will surely come into play at some point in the future.

Further, it should be noted that nothing in any court ruling in this case has validated or substantiated even one word published in ECNR concerning us. On the contrary, the evidence in the case, including several admissions under oath by Mr. Ankerberg and Mr. Weldon, the authors of ECNR, make it clear that there never has been any factual basis whatsoever for any of the false statements that were the subject of our lawsuit.

When we submitted our petitions to the Texas Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court, we fully realized that the likelihood that our case would be heard was extremely remote. In Texas only about 1 in 10 appeals are taken up, and at the US Supreme Court level the ratio is only about 1 out of 100. Yet, after many hours of prayer, consideration, and consultation with valued friends, experts, scholars, and academicians, we felt compelled by the Lord to go forward. While it is our responsibility to defend the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and the local churches raised up by this ministry from such misrepresentations, we also have an obligation to other Christian groups that might be similarly victimized and denied their constitutional and legal protections.

Our Responsibility

As for the ministry and the churches that we represent, we believe that we have exercised the highest level of responsibility, both as members of the Body of Christ and as citizens of this great country, in how we have conducted ourselves in this entire effort, including our appeal to the highest court in the land, as the apostle Paul did in his day by appealing to Caesar (Acts 25:11, 26:32). Although, perhaps like Paul, our appeal proved more difficult than expected, we are confirmed in the Lord that we were right to “stand therefore” (Eph. 6:10-14).

Our Appreciation

Many of our dear Christian friends have taken the time to honestly investigate all of the relevant issues and have expressed publicly, often at great personal cost, their belief in both our Christian orthodoxy and the justness of this cause. We are deeply grateful for such genuine expressions of both Christian love and absolute commitment to the truth. We continue to pray that the Lord will honor their righteous stand and bless them with every blessing in Christ.

Further Documentation

To those who question the veracity of our public statements or the validity of the justification we have laid out for our actions, we offer to make available the pertinent documents in this case which are public record. We believe they present a very enlightening, perhaps even frightening picture of what really went on in both the production of ECNR and the defendants’ conduct after its publication.

Our Thanks and Our Hope

Finally, we are deeply thankful to the Lord Jesus for leading us to so many dear brothers and sisters in Christ during the course of these past six years. We purposely determined that in addition to fighting this spurious and dangerous book, we would also seek out genuine believers with the hope of making ourselves better and more accurately known than in the past. The Lord has blessed this aspect of the whole endeavor very much indeed. Despite the legal disappointment, we are in no way disappointed with the overall outcome.

The Lord has, in His sovereign care for us, done much more than we expected. At the same time, we cannot help but remain concerned for the churches and believers here and for the thousands, if not millions of believers in countries that can be hostile toward the faith that may suffer directly as a result of this ruling. Positively, in this country, many have taken up our invitation to do honest research and make an honest evaluation of our teachings, practice, and history. Among but not limited to these are Fuller Theological Seminary, Christianity Today, Christian Research Institute, Answers in Action, the Institute for the Study of American Religion, and the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. In addition to these are the many individual Christian leaders whom we have come to know in Christ and with whom we enjoy genuine Christian fellowship in love. We hope to add to this number in the days ahead and will continue to aggressively seek opportunities for fellowship with fellow members of the Body of Christ that the Lord may be fully and supremely glorified and that His truth may be equally lifted up.

PDF

A Letter to the Saints in the Lord’s Recovery

Posted on by

June 22, 2007

Dear Saints,

This week the United States Supreme Court declined to hear our appeal in the libel suit against the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR). This means that we have come to the end of our legal options at this time in dealing with this book. In this letter we would like to review with you: why we litigated over ECNR; a brief history of the controversy and the significance of the courts’ decisions; examples of facts uncovered by our litigation; the strong support we have received and its significance; and our attitude and course going forward.

Why We Litigated over ECNR

This evil book certainly defamed us both here and abroad with the most wild and criminal accusations of any book ever to include us. After one year of the authors’ and publisher’s rebuffing our attempts to resolve their horrific misrepresentations through Christian fellowship, we were left with two courses of possible action: to do nothing and allow the lies to spread or to stand up in the Lord and fight for the truth and practice of the Lord’s recovery ministered to us by our senior coworkers, Brother Nee and Brother Lee. Our rising up to fight should be a clear sign that we will not accept such accusations.

A Brief History of the Controversy and the Significance of the Courts’ Decisions

From January 2001 to December 2001, we attempted to contact Harvest House Publishers and its authors, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, sending them six letters (posted on contendingforthefaith.org) seeking Christian fellowship to resolve this controversy. While we were still seeking an amicable resolution to this dispute, Harvest House initiated legal action against us by filing a lawsuit in Oregon on December 14, 2001. With the statute of limitations running out, we sought the court’s intervention by filing a libel suit against the publisher and authors on December 31, 2001. Their suit in Oregon was quickly dismissed by the district court.

Our defamation suit continued forward in Texas, and on three separate occasions the district court denied the defendants’ attempts to have our case thrown out. Because judges at this level spend much time reviewing evidence and hearing oral arguments, we feel these three court rulings by two different judges reflect the strength of our case in terms of both the law and evidence. However, before the case could get to trial, Harvest House appealed the court’s denial to the Texas Court of Appeals. After a brief oral argument, the Texas Court of Appeals overturned the three previous decisions of the lower court and granted the defendants’ motion, dismissing our suit. It declared, despite ECNR‘s allegations of horrific secular crimes, that the case was merely a “religious” dispute. Both the decision itself and the grounds cited for it were seriously flawed.

The Appeals Court ruled, in essence, that if one party accuses another party with allegations of criminal behavior— but does it in a “religious” context— it cannot be found liable for the damages it caused. We believe, as do a number of constitutional scholars and religious experts, that the Texas Appeals decision set a dangerous precedent. Their decision has already been criticized by a Federal District Court in Wisconsin. As a result of the Court of Appeals decision, it is possible that, after being out of publication now for five years, ECNR could be published again with even more misrepresentations or that others may try to follow ECNR‘s dangerous example of mixing libelous charges with the term “cult” and theology to smear us.

While we felt it was necessary to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, we fully realized that the likelihood that our case would be heard was remote when we submitted our petitions. Such reviews are discretionary and at the US Supreme Court level, for example, the ratio of cases accepted for review is only about 1 out of every 100. Yet, after much prayer, fellowship, and consultation we felt to go forward.

First, the Texas Supreme Court and now the U.S. Supreme Court have declined to review the flawed Appeals Court ruling. This means that neither court reviewed the merits of our case or passed judgment on the Appeals Court ruling. Their failure to review is by no means an endorsement of that faulty ruling. In addition, nothing in any court ruling in this case has validated or substantiated even one word published in ECNR concerning the local churches or Living Stream Ministry (LSM). On the contrary, the evidence in the case, including several admissions under oath by Mr. Ankerberg and Mr. Weldon, the authors of ECNR, make it clear that there never has been any factual basis whatsoever for any of the false statements that were the subject of our lawsuit.

We believe that we have exercised the highest level of responsibility, both as members of the Body of Christ and as citizens of this country, in how we have conducted ourselves in this effort, including our appeal to the highest court in the land, as the apostle Paul did in his day by appealing to Caesar (Acts 25:11, 26:32). We feel much confirmed in the Lord that it is right to “stand therefore” (Eph. 6:10-14).

Examples of Facts Uncovered by Our Litigation

In at least eight different manuscripts from the early 1980s through early 1999, authors Ankerberg and Weldon concluded, “Theologically speaking, Witness Lee and the Local Church do not constitute a cult, or strictly speaking, a non-Christian religion”. Weldon, even after ECNR had been published three times and in the same month that Harvest House sued us, admitted to a fellow anti-cultist that he did not know whether the local churches were a “cult” and that “to prove it would require a lot more time and space than we have.” During the same time, Ankerberg and Weldon prepared a revised chapter for a second edition of ECNR containing the words, “The Local Church.is unique among the groups in this encyclopedia. It is not a cult in the negative sense of the term, nor do the characteristics of cults in the Introduction generally apply to them.”

John Ankerberg and John Weldon have a reputation among some evangelicals as scholars, but the facts we uncovered show that several of their claimed scholarly achievements are a sham. Between the two authors, they have at various times claimed a PhD and at least four other doctorate degrees and five master’s degrees. However, between the two of them, there is only one master’s degree earned from a truly accredited institution. Weldon’s instructions to a secretary employed by John Ankerberg to select from his manuscript the most “damning” and “damaging” quotes to “really hit these guys hard” and to show their “demonization” belies the scholarly trappings of the book and resulted in a grossly distorted portrayal of LSM and the local churches.

Harvest House’s editorial process did not include any substantive editing or fact checking of ECNR. In fact, no one on the editorial staff of Harvest House read the book before it was published. Furthermore, Harvest House’s President, Bob Hawkins, Jr., testified that he did not read the complained-about sections of the book and that no steps were taken to validate the authors’ research after receiving our letters of protest that clearly indicated the potential bias of the primary author.

Throughout this controversy, Harvest House, Ankerberg and Weldon have steadfastly refused to meet with us as Christian brothers. Harvest House responded to our first offer to travel to Oregon for Christian fellowship with a letter from their attorney. While we were continuing to negotiate with them in good faith, the publisher surreptitiously filed a lawsuit against us. Thus, Harvest House initiated the use of litigation. Harvest House and its authors received numerous protests about the libelous nature of ECNR‘s inaccuracies but continued its republication even long after our lawsuit was filed. In court and under oath at deposition, both the publisher and authors failed to produce any evidence that the libelous charges of criminal and immoral behavior in ECNR were true concerning us, yet they would not and have not admitted that the charges are false.

The Strong Support We Have Received and its Significance

As you know, whenever others have taken the time to investigate either the details of our case or the details of what we believe, we have found warm support. We purposely determined that in addition to fighting the defamatory book, we would also seek out genuine believers with the hope of making ourselves better and more accurately known than in the past. The Lord has blessed this aspect of the whole endeavor very much indeed.

Despite the legal disappointment, we are in no way disappointed with the overall outcome to date. No court victory could result in a positive affirmation of our Christian faith and practice; however, during the course of this litigation many have taken up our invitation, often at great personal cost, to honestly research and evaluate our teachings, practice, and history. Some of these include: Fuller Theological Seminary, including president Richard Mouw, Dean of Theology Howard Loewen, and Professor of Theology Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen; Christian Research Institute and its President Hank Hanegraaff, aka the “Bible Answer Man”; Answers in Action and its Director Gretchen Passantino; The Institute for the Study of American Religion, headed by Dr. Gordon Melton; John Van Diest, editor at Tyndale Publishing; and the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association, which includes all of the major Christian publishers. See for example the material posted at www.lctestimony.org and the friend-of-the-court briefs posted at /libel-litigations/harvest-house-et-al/index.html.

The recognition of these and many other evangelicals over the past five years that the saints in the Lord’s recovery are genuine believers and that the recovery is a genuine move of the Body of Christ will spread and affect many more in the time to come. We hope to add to this number in the days ahead and will continue to aggressively seek opportunities for fellowship with fellow believers. We should pray for this.

Our Attitude and Course Going Forward

We continue to believe that the Lord led us to bring this matter to the courts. The chances of another wild and irresponsible book coming from mainstream Christendom at this time seem small. We have to testify that we have seen the Lord’s hand move strongly in too many details of this endeavor to have anything except the utmost faith in His continued leading. The Lord has, in His sovereign care for us, done much more than we expected. At the same time, we remain concerned for the churches and believers here and for the hundreds of thousands of believers in countries that can be hostile toward the faith who may suffer directly as a result of this ruling.

We accept this decision by the Court as from the Lord’s sovereign hand and we remain undaunted in our determination to expose the evils of this book. We still feel that this book must be dealt with for the sake of the truth and for the sake of those in China and other countries who do not share in the freedoms we enjoy. We must continue to stand and fight by writing and by further aggressive contacts with the Christian public. If we publish the real story of ECNR, it will make for some very shocking reading and will come out as an expos of unqualified authors and an irresponsible publisher who behaved very badly while trying to vindicate something that they knew to be wrong. On the side of aggressively contacting others, we see the Lord’s hand opening doors and feel we must go forward. We are full of confidence, not in ourselves but in the truth and life with which we have been commissioned.

In any case brothers, we feel to do what the Lord led us to do from the beginning-to stand up and fight for the truth as far as He enables us to go on, with the confidence that ultimately the Lord will win this battle. At this point, let us look to the Lord for His leading in how to go forward.

The brothers striving together for the defense and confirmation of the gospel

PDF

Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Posted on by

June 20, 2007

ANAHEIM, CA, June 20 – A ruling this week by The United States Supreme Court electing not to grant review of a Texas Court of Appeals decision in the libel case filed by Living Stream Ministry (LSM) and the local churches v. Harvest House Publishers and the authors of the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR) undermines a fundamental protection of the Constitution. The Texas Court of Appeals decision has already been criticized by a federal district court in Wisconsin.

This decision brings to an end a legal struggle that began December 14, 2001, when Harvest House Publishers initiated legal action against one of the local churches. The churches and Living Stream Ministry (LSM) responded by filing a suit for libel. The Harvest House suit was dismissed in district court in 2002, while the local churches and LSM’s lawsuit continued forward in Texas. There, on three separate occasions, two district court judges denied the defendants’ attempts to have the case thrown out.

However, without it ever going to a jury trial, the Court of Appeals in Texas overturned the decisions of the lower court, declaring the case a “religious” dispute—despite ECNR‘s allegations of secular crimes. In essence, the Appeals Court ruled that if one party alleges criminal behavior against another party—but does it in a “religious” context—it cannot be found liable for the damages caused.

Because reviews at the US Supreme Court level are discretionary, its decision to deny review cannot accurately be considered as an endorsement of the prior Appeals Court ruling. Neither can it appropriately be viewed as a rejection of the central theme of the local churches and LSM’s lawsuit. In fact, there is no court ruling at any level that has substantiated or validated any of the claims published in ECNR concerning LSM or the local churches. On the contrary, the evidence in the case, including several admissions under oath by the authors of ECNR, demonstrate that there is not, nor has there ever been, any factual basis for any of the false and defaming statements that were the real basis of the lawsuit.

In the past several years, many qualified Christian researchers and theologians have carefully investigated the teachings, practice, and history of LSM and the local churches and have expressed their belief in both the Christian orthodoxy and practice of both groups. Among these are Fuller Theological Seminary, Christianity Today, Christian Research Institute, Answers in Action, The Institute for the Study of American Religion, and the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. See, for example, www.lctestimony.org.

Many constitutional scholars and religious experts share the concern of LSM and the local churches that the Texas Court of Appeals’ decision sets a dangerous precedent and has wrongly precluded a full airing of the facts at the heart of this litigation. The detrimental effects will not likely be limited to the local churches and believers in the United States, but may be especially troublesome for those in countries that can be hostile toward the Christian faith-where innocent believers may suffer as a direct result of this ruling. Beyond the damage resulting to Living Stream Ministry and the local churches, if religious authors and publishers have free reign to use criminal accusations to attack ministries and churches simply because they disagree with them doctrinally, then all minority Christian groups are in jeopardy.

Living Stream Ministry and the local churches it serves remain committed to the biblical truths represented in our publications and to the oneness of the Body of Christ. We will continue to seek genuine Christian fellowship with a broad spectrum of believers eager to know the truth in love.

For background on this case, including copies of official court documents, go to www.contendingforthefaith.org/local-church-et-al-vs-harvest-house-et-al/.

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chris Wilde with Living Stream Ministry
(714) 226-1720
Colley Joseph for the local churches
(405) 833-3233

The entire statement is available in Adobe format here.

Amicus Brief from Publishers, Broadcasters, Religious Organizations (U.S. Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Six signers in the field of publishing, broadcasting, and religion submitted an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court, urging the court to review the appeal of the local churches and Living Stream Ministry seeking relief from defamation in the Harvest House book Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions co-authored by John Weldon and John Ankerberg. The brief stressed the need to balance protection of freedom of speech and of the press with the rights of religious organizations to seek protection from libel. The brief was signed by:

PDF for Amicus Brief from Publishers, Broadcasters, Religious Organizations (U.S. Supreme Court)

Amicus Brief from International Experts (U.S. Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Six international experts signed an amicus brief asking the United States Supreme Court to review the Texas Court of Appeals decision in The Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al case. The brief argued that “the Court of Appeals’ reduction of the term cult to an “ecclesiastical” definition, and its failure to address the secular understanding of cult as presented in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, increases the threat of persecution to Christians residing in religiously restrictive countries…” The amici who signed the brief were:

  • Ambassador Winston Lord—U.S. Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, 1985-1989; President of Council on Foreign Relations, 1977-1985; Special Assistant
    to National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger; Assistant Secretary of State, East Asian Policy, 1993-1997;
  • Ambassador Nicholas Platt—U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines (1987-1991) and Pakistan (1991-1992); Foreign Service assignments in Hong Kong, Beijing and Tokyo; China Analyst at the State Department; Member of National Security Council, Asian Affairs; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Asian Affairs; Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs; Executive Secretary, Department of State; President of the Asia Society for twelve years;
  • Ambassador Burton Levin—U.S. Ambassador to Myanmar, 1987-1990; U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong, 1981-1986 and former top China expert at the State Department; Visiting Professor of Asian Politics at Carleton College;
  • Dr. Ed Irons—Director of the Hong Kong Institute for Culture, Commerce and Religion; former Professor at the Beijing University of Science and Technology;
  • Bette Bao Lord—Author and Human Rights Activist;
  • Sidney Rittenberg—A leading American expert on China lived in China for 35 years, 16 as a political prisoner; Founder and President of Rittenberg Associates, Inc.

Amicus Brief from International Experts (U.S. Supreme Court)

Amicus Brief from Prominent Religious and Social Science Scholars (U.S. Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Ten prominent scholars in the fields of religion and the social sciences signed an amicus brief asking the United States Supreme Court to review the Texas Court of Appeals decision in The Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al on the basis of the “detrimental effect this ruling may have on religious freedom in America.” In particular the scholars argued that:

  • In ruling that the word cult is incapable of defamatory meaning, regardless of context which attributed criminal behavior to “cults,” the Texas Court of Appeals violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution and damaged the diversity of
    religious expression that is a bulwark of our society.
  • Contrary to the ruling of the Texas Court, the word cult carries a secular, potentially defamatory meaning, and this secular meaning was highlighted by the context of the accusation in ECNR.
  • The term cult is legally capable of defamation, and this case should therefore have been presented to a jury.
  • In wrongly applying the “ecclesiastical abstention” doctrine to shield Respondents from
    liability for their otherwise defamatory accusations related to being a “cult,” the Texas Court violated the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment by treating Petitioners as if they were members of Respondents’ denomination, and also destroyed the doctrine’s “implied consent” requirement.

The brief was filed by Derek H. Davis, J.D., Ph.D., Dean of the Graduate School at University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, and was signed by:

  • Ronald B. Flowers, Ph.D., Author, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Texas Christian University;
  • H. Newton Maloney, Ph.D., Author, retired Senior Professor of Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychology, at Fuller Theological Seminary;
  • Timothy Miller, Ph.D., Author, Professor of Religious Studies, University of Kansas;
  • William L. Pitts, Ph.D., Author, Professor of History of Christianity and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Religion, Baylor University;
  • Father John A. Saliba, Ph.D., S.J., Author, Professor of Religious Studies at University of Detroit, Mercy;
  • Rodney Stark, Ph.D., Author, Co-Director, Institute for Studies of Religion and University Professor of the Social Sciences, Baylor University;
  • Mark G. Toulouse, Ph.D., Author, Professor of American Religious History at Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University;
  • Stuart A. Wright, Ph.D., Author, Professor of Sociology and Assistant Director for Research and Sponsored Programs Administration, Lamar University;
  • Edwin S. Gaustad, Ph.D., Author, Professor Emeritus of History and Religious Studies, University of California-Riverside; and
  • James M. Dunn, Ph.D., Author, Visiting Professor of Christianity and Public Policy at Wake Forest Divinity School, Former Executive Director of Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.

PDF of Amicus Brief from Prominent Scholars (U.S. Supreme Court)

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Posted on by

This document is the official Petition for Writ of Certiorari submitted by the local churches to the U.S. Supreme Court, in an appeal to said Supreme Court—that they would review the case (Local Church, Living Stream Ministry, et al. v. Harvest House Publishers, et al.), which was previously overturned by the Texas Court of Appeals. It includes statements concerning the basic facts and concerns of the case.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Four amicus briefs were submitted in support of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, representing each of four groups of signers:

Amicus Brief from Rodney A. Smolla (Texas Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Dr. Rodney A. Smolla, Dean and George Allen Professor of Law and the University of Richmond School of Law, submitted an amicus brief to the Texas Supreme Court urging the justices to reconsider the Texas Court of Appeals decision in The Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al. Dr. Smolla’s two-volume set Law of Defamation is considered one of the standard resources on the subject. Dr. Smolla argued that:

  • The Court of Appeals’ invocation of the Establishment Clause should be reviewed;
  • The Court of Appeals departed from the appropriate defamatory meaning analysis by failing to evaluate the word cult in the context of the work as a whole;
  • The Court of Appeals failed to consider the rule of ambiguity; and
  • The Court of Appeals’ resolution of the “of an concerning” issue hinged on a misapplication of the group libel doctrine.

PDF of Amicus Brief from Rodney A. Smolla (Texas Supreme Court)

Reply to Response to Petition for Review

Posted on by

This document is the reply made on part of the local churches to Harvest House’s response to the Petition for Review document submitted by the local churches to the Texas Supreme Court, appealing that the court would review the case (Local Church, Living Stream Ministry, et al. v. Harvest House Publishers, et al.), which was previously overturned by the Texas Court of Appeals. The statements put forth in this document dispute the claims made by Harvest House in their response to the local churches’ Petition for Review.

Reply to Response to Petition for Review

Harvest House’s Hypocrisy Concerning Criticism of Christianity

Posted on by

Harvest House’s attempt to cause fellow believers to shun Living Stream Ministry and the local churches by inciting revulsion against our Scriptural critique of the non-biblical religious system of today’s Christianity is an exercise in hypocrisy. An examination of quotes from some of Harvest House’s own publications makes the hypocrisy of their feigned indignation evident.

Concerning Evangelical Christianity

Harvest House books contain numerous passages decrying the state of evangelical Christianity today. Their criticism ranges from accusations of occultism, to the sick condition of the evangelical church, to charges of compromising the truth of the gospel as the following examples show:

The occult invasion of evangelical churches is one of the most shocking facts of our day.1

Evangelicals have joined in partnership with Roman Catholicism’s counterfeit gospel to evangelize the world together. In so doing, they have also joined with all of Rome’s pagan and occultist partners.2

In their eagerness to pretend either that the Reformation never occurred or that the issues raised were of no consequence, leading evangelicals suppress the truth about Roman Catholicism.3

And how can a genuine rebirth of biblical Christianity take place when those [evangelicals] leading the revival are themselves engaged in unconscionable compromise with the enemies of Christ!4

It [our criticism] only questions the wisdom and effectiveness of dialogues when “most Christian leaders would argue that the state of the Evangelical Church in America is more anemic than the Church in almost any other part of the world. The state of the Church in North America gives occasion for repentance and mourning, not glorifying.” If so, the church in North America should perhaps spend more of its time building up its own deteriorating house rather than attempting to help another completely rebuild theirs.5

On January 11, 1997, Josh McDowell stated in a lecture, “I would estimate 98.9% of all evangelical fundamental kids are living legalism…”6

Why is it legitimate for Harvest House books to critique the state of evangelical Christianity, but not for those of the Living Stream Ministry?

Concerning Christianity and the Church Generally

Harvest House books also contain stinging critiques of Christianity and of the state of the church generally:

If there is to be a return to biblical Christianity, it will be necessary first of all to admit that something is wrong with “Christianity” as it is now generally taught and practiced.7

The condition of the church today reflects this very spiritual cancer. The church is flaccid, ignorant, and unprepared.8

Few can deny that the church today does have cultic and occultic influences within its ranks.9

Within the Church today-and I include many evangelical churches-there are many who have experienced direct or indirect involvement with the occult.10

Witness as examples the modern influence of . parapsychology and cultism in Christian theology…11

Much of the “Christianity” being taught today does not come from the Bible, but represents a Christianization of the latest secular ideas popular in the world.12

Constantine married Christianity to paganism and opened the door of the church to a massive occult invasion.13

There are serious errors in many Protestant churches. Some are apostate and involved in occult practices.14

I fear that much of Christendom today, including many Protestant denominations, has gone the way of Judaism. It has become a religion of misguided people who think peace with God can be achieved through religious practices and moral living.15

Lutheran leaders have now joined Rome in betrayal of the very truths for which Luther suffered so greatly.16

Again we would ask: On what basis does Harvest House justify attacking Living Stream Ministry and the local churches for critiquing the unbiblical practices prevalent in Christianity which replace the believers’ enjoyment of Christ, nullify their function as members of the Body of Christ, and divides the Body of Christ, when their own publications, with much less appeal to Scripture, speak of rampant occultism, betrayal of the gospel, and the poor condition of the church generally?

Concerning the Roman Catholic Church

Harvest House quotes passages from Living Stream Ministry that apply the Lord’s prophetic word in Revelation 2 concerning the church in Thyatira to the Roman Catholic Church. They do not tell their readers that this interpretation of Revelation 2 and 3 has a long history among Bible expositors. Neither does Harvest House tell the public that their own publications promote the following criticisms of Roman Catholicism:

The Roman Catholic Church is a counterfeit of the worst and most diabolical kind, a form of the antichrist, to be rejected and denounced.17

The Roman Catholic Church has been in apostasy and occultism (communication with the dead, fetishes and magic rituals, etc.) for 1500 years.18

That the Pope and the Catholic Church are in perfect accord with the demonic apparition [of Mary] and their antibiblical theology and false gospel says it all. And one would not expect it to be otherwise, considering Catholicism’s deep involvement in the occult.19

Pope John XII was not only a murderer and womanizer (like so many other popes), but even toasted Satan at St. Peter’s altar.20

Remember that Hitler and Mussolini remained Catholics to the end and were never excommunicated from the Church. So did thousands of the worst Nazi war criminals, whom the Vatican smuggled out of Europe into safe havens in South America.21

Their [the popes’] lives as recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia read like an unbelievable soap opera of lust, madness, mayhem, and murder. Nevertheless, all of these master criminals, poisoners, adulterers, and mass murderers are considered to have been infallible when they spoke ex cathedra….22

Knowledgeable Catholics readily admit that many popes were incredibly evil.23

There are also reported cases [of sexual intercourse with demons] in Catholic monasteries. There are also cases of sex with alleged UFO occupants (e.g., the Villa Boas, Shane Kurz, and Cordelia Donovan incidents), which essentially parallel the incubi-succubae.24

Is it honest for a publisher and its authors to inflame passions against others for Bible exposition which has extensive historical precedent, when their own publications include such sensationalistic accusations.

Attacks on Billy Graham and Other Individuals

There are a number of significant differences between the criticism of Christianity in Living Stream Ministry publications and those of Harvest House. One is that while LSM limits its criticism to the unscriptural system of Christianity, comparing Scriptural teachings and patterns to modern teachings and practices, Harvest House books frequently direct their attacks against specific individuals.

For example, in Occult Invasion Harvest House author Dave Hunt says:

Sadly, Billy Graham himself, though he has faithfully preached the gospel and many people have been saved as a result, has also betrayed the gospel.25

This Harvest House book criticizes individuals and groups representing pretty much the full gamut of evangelicalism, including Bill Bright, Charles Colson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Bill Hybels, Bill McCartney, Josh McDowell, J.I. Packer, Pat Robertson, John Wimber, Campus Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Youth With a Mission, Promise Keepers, Fuller Theological Seminary, Wheaton College, Christianity Today, Charisma, Moody Magazine, Trinity Broadcasting Network, Christian Broadcasting Network, Willow Creek Community Church (of which John Ankerberg was an early member), and Christian Research Institute.26

Similarly in Protestants & Catholics Together: Do They Now Agree?, John Ankerberg and John Weldon criticize “Dr. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ; Dr. Os Guinness with Trinity Forum; Dr. Mark Noll of Wheaton College; Dr. James I. Packer with Regent College; the Reverend Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network; Charles Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship; Dr. Richard Land with the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Dr. Larry Lewis with the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Dr. John White with Geneva College and the National Association of Evangelicals”27 for signing the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” statement, which they consider a serious compromise of the gospel of Christ with Catholicism, which is “not even a Christian religion.”28

Conclusion

Our point in presenting these Harvest House excerpts is not to pass judgment on whether they are right or wrong, but simply to point out the hypocrisy of Harvest House’s feigned outrage over our criticism of the unbiblical system of Christianity. Harvest House’s practice of ripping quotes out of context from Living Stream Ministry publications is unethical. Using Harvest House’s own terms by which they defend their practice of misapplying quotes from Living Stream Ministry publications, we think Harvest House would have to agree concerning the quotes cited above that:

  1. They are “accurately documented quotes, all of which we excerpted directly from [Harvest House] publications”?29
  2. “Every single quote provides information about its original source, so their accuracy can readily be verified by anyone who desires to check them.”30
  3. These “‘damaging’ and hard-hitting” quotes, while offensive “in the ears of Roman Catholics, Protestants and [Evangelicals],” “are accurately attributed to Harvest House.”31

We would also ask them:

  1. Do these “quotes stand completely on their own and speak for themselves with no commentary whatsoever”?32
  2. Does accurately transcribing the words from their books make “it impossible for them to be distorted or taken out of context”?33
  3. And finally, do these quotes present a balanced and fair representation of Harvest House’s ministry?

Notes:

1Dave Hunt, Occult Invasion (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), p. 102.

2Ibid., p. 553.

3Ibid., p. 423.

4Ibid., p. 534.

5John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), p. 226.

6John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1999), p. XXX.

7Dave Hunt, Beyond Seduction (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1987), p. 25.

8Tal Brooke, When the World Will Be As One (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1989), p. 218.

9“Foreword,” by Walter Martin in John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Cult Watch (Harvest House Publishers, 1991), p. VIII.

10John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Coming Darkness (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), p. 247, quoting W. Elwin Davies from Montgomery, Demon Possession.

11Ankerberg and Weldon, The Coming Darkness, p. 54.

12Hunt, Beyond Seduction, p. 116.

13Hunt, Occult Invasion, p. 409.

14Ibid., p. 564.

15James R. Waiss and James G. McCarthy, Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 375.

16Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994), pp. 539-540.

17Ibid., p. 388, quoting D. Martin Lloyd-Jones.

18Hunt, Occult Invasion, p. 564.

19Ibid., p .404.

20Ibid., p. 431.

21Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast, pp. 90-91.

22Ibid., 91.

23Ibid., 91.

24Ankerberg and Weldon, The Coming Darkness, pp. 196-197.

25Hunt, Occult Invasion, p. 587,

26Ibid., p, 21, 24, 103-104, 120, 249, 273, 276, 311, 458-459, 468, 470, 477, 480, 493-494, 531, 534-535, 545-547, 553, 562, 583, 595-596.

27Ankerberg and Weldon, Protestants & Catholics Together, p. 134.

28Ibid., p. 212.

29The quoted portion is from “Harvest House and Authors Address Newest Allegations from The Local Church and Living Stream Ministry,” https://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/images/uploads/2004_04_05_HHP_Addresses_Newest_Allegations.pdf , and is applied to Harvest House’s treatment of Living Stream Ministry publications.

30Ibid.

31Ibid.

32Ibid.

33Ibid.

ECNR’s Misrepresentations

Posted on by

Portraying Us as against Christians and the Christian Faith

Living Stream Ministry and the local churches are described in Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR) in terms that encourage people to exclude us from Christian fellowship. Concerning our churches and ministry, ECNR alleges:

Attitude toward Christianity: Rejecting. (When Lee refers to “Christians” or even “religion,” he is generally referring to true believers.)

and

Claim: To be the only true church that God is satisfied with.

Then ECNR offers an out of context quote as proof that we are “rejecting” Christians and the Christian faith:

If you keep religion [Christianity], you will lose Christ. (Witness Lee, Christ vs. Religion, p. 157.)

Our 2001 Letter to Harvest House Concerning Misrepresentations

In November 2001, we clearly pointed these misrepresentations out to Harvest House. Following are four selections from Exhibit B of our November 20, 2001, letter:

——–1——–

What is said about us is not merely inaccurate. It appears to be intentionally designed to force us into the book’s portrayal of a cult and to make us unrecognizable as Christians…

——–2——–

Misrepresentation No. 6: “Claim: To be the only true church that God is satisfied with.”

Fact: We do not make this claim. In saying we are the church in a city, we are saying that we, including – not excluding – all the believers in that city, regardless of their conviction or practice regarding the church, are members of the one Body of Christ and that we are standing on that basis to meet as that church. Our meetings are open to and for all believers: we receive believers on the basis of God’s receiving of them (Romans 14). We do not forbid or exclude the participation of any believers, regardless of their doctrinal preferences (except for teachings or practices that are sinful, idolatrous or divisive). While we do not believe denominationalism is a scriptural practice, neither do we teach that to simply meet according to the scriptural principle of one church in one city “satisfie[s] God.” We also recognize that other Christian groups may be more faithful to the Lord, more spiritual, and/or more scriptural in some aspects than we are. The above charge is used to imply that we, similar to the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, think we are the only real Christians. This, in fact, is not the case. For a more thorough explanation of our stand regarding the church and all believers, see the many publications on this subject by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, including The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life by Witness Lee….

——–3——–

Misrepresentation No. 9: “Attitude toward Christianity: Rejecting. (When Lee refers to “Christians” or even “religion,” he is generally referring to true believers.)”

Fact: This statement relies on a gross misrepresentation of what we mean by “Christianity,” and is diametrically opposed to our true belief. In certain discussions, we (as do many others) use the term Christianity to refer to unscriptural practices and organizational systems inherited from Judaism or Catholicism and yet practiced at times in Protestant churches. However, we never use “Christianity” to refer to and reject any Christian believers (regardless of their church practice). ECNR misrepresents us by changing the meaning of “Christianity” to mean “Christians” and “true believers,” rather than limiting our critique to the unscriptural man-made systems.

This misrepresentation is compounded by the insertion of “[Christianity]” in the quote taken from page 157 of Christ vs. Religion and addressed in some detail [see below]. Interestingly, on page XXX and other places in ECNR, the authors demonstrate and document their own low opinion of “Christianity” as it is widely practiced today. Following are some selections from The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches to further clarify our attitude toward Christianity and toward the believers:

  • What is your attitude toward the historic, institutional Christian church?

    We stand outside of and apart from historical, organized, institutionalized Christianity because we regard it as a system filled with unscriptural teachings and practices. For the sake of the genuine recovery of the church life revealed in the Bible, we meet together in the Lord’s name on the ground of genuine oneness in the locality.

  • What is your attitude toward other Christians?

    We would like to make it emphatically clear that we neither believe nor teach that one must be in a local church in order to be a genuine Christian. We recognize that in the Roman Catholic Church, in the denominations, and in the independent groups there are many genuine blood-washed, Spirit-regenerated believers in Christ, and we receive them as our brothers and sisters in the Lord. All who have saving faith in the Lord Jesus are welcome to all our meetings, especially the Lord’s table, where we testify of the oneness of the Body of Christ. Although we must, for conscience’ sake, stand apart from organized religion, we do not stand apart from our brothers and sisters in Christ. In faithfulness to the Lord, we stand on the unique ground of the church for the sake of the Lord’s testimony. But we do not take this stand with a narrow, exclusive, or sectarian spirit. On the contrary, we take our stand on behalf of the whole Body; we receive all believers even as the Lord has received us….

——–4——–

ECNR wrenches four quotes out of their clear context. (1) Witness Lee’s words concerning the practice of circumcision are miscast into a rejection of “Christians” and “true believers”….

ECNR Quote No. 1: “‘If you keep religion [Christianity], you will lose Christ.’ (Witness Lee, Christ vs. Religion, p. 157.)”

The first quote is a half sentence presented as a complete sentence, taken out of context, and twisted by a foreign insertion to be given a different meaning. The quote is not an example of Witness Lee criticizing “Christianity,” as the authors allege, but of Witness Lee paraphrasing the Apostle Paul’s criticism of the Jewish practice of circumcision being brought into the early churches. While we recommend the context of the entire book, the following is the quote (underlined) for your reconsideration, in context:

Paul tells us in his letter to the Galatians that if we attempt to keep religion, we will lose Christ and Christ will become of no effect to us. “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:2, 4). If you keep religion, you will lose Christ; and if you keep Christ, you will certainly lose religion. Christ is versus religion; Christ never goes along with religion.

Then Paul tells us in Galatians 6 that it is not a matter of circumcision or uncircumcision, it is not a matter of being a Jew or a Greek; it is a matter of being a new creature in Christ (6:15). He says, “If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk” (5:25). This is all: we just need to walk in the Spirit; we just need to be a new creature, without anything religious.

This quote uses the term religion with reference to a Jewish religious practice, i.e. circumcision, and not, as alleged directly before under “Attitude toward Christianity,” with reference to “true believers.” It is hard to imagine a more flagrant misquotation. One may wonder why it was done if not to deliberately mischaracterize Witness Lee as being anti-Christian. The quoted passage is not a criticism of any proper New Testament teaching or practice, as the authors allege by inserting “[Christianity]” among Witness Lee’s words, thus changing his original meaning significantly.

Conclusion

Harvest House never accepted our requests to meet with them to explain ECNR‘s misrepresentation of our beliefs, nor did they respond to our thorough documentation of the twisting of our teaching in ECNR. Notwithstanding our protests of the misrepresentations of our teaching and practice in ECNR, Harvest House continued to publish ECNR with the same distorted picture of Living Stream Ministry and the local churches. Not only so, but Harvest House has since publicly expanded their distortion of our teaching and practice on their corporate Web site (see “Misrepresentations on the Harvest House Corporate Web Site“). Harvest House defends their behavior by saying they and their authors quote “accurately,” as though they had never received our November 2001 letter. Clearly they know better. We believe that this type of misrepresentation should cause both concern and comment from responsible Christians.

Misrepresentations on the Harvest House Corporate Web Site

Posted on by

Harvest House has been actively seeking to influence public opinion against Living Stream Ministry and the local churches by publishing out of context statements. This is an attempt to scandalize Christian readers against us and against our critique of today’s “Christianity.” For this reason, we feel obligated to make our position clear to all our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Divine Revelation in the Bible

As believers, we love the pure revelation in the Bible. The Bible reveals Christ as the unsearchably rich One (Eph. 3:8), the eternal God who became a man (John 1:1, 14; 1 Tim. 3:16)) to accomplish redemption (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7) that He could enter into us (Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 13:5) and become our life (Col. 3:4). The Bible also reveals the church as the Body of such a Christ to be His enlargement and corporate expression (Eph. 1:22-23; 1 Cor. 12:12-13).

Organized Christianity’s Shortcomings

However, what we see today in Christendom in the organized system of “Christianity” falls far short of this reality and is characterized instead by the mixing of many foreign elements into the pure divine revelation that is found in the Scriptures. These non-biblical elements change the normal Christian life from a daily enjoyment of Christ as life to creedalism and Christ-less religious duty. They deform the normal function and expression of the church from that of the Body of Christ to a mere organization of man, cheating God’s people of their function and damaging God’s testimony of oneness. Thus, our criticism is not of the Christian faith or of our fellow believers; our criticism is of the “anity” that has been added to Christ, the system of Christianity as it exists today.

The Bible records that Christ “loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25), not for any “ism,” whether “Judaism,” “Catholicism” or “Protestantism.” God did not save us for any “anity” or any “ism;” He saved us to be the Body of Christ. While concepts such as these are not universally held among believers today, neither are they entirely foreign. They certainly should not be foreign to those putting themselves forward as Christian scholars and Christian publishers.

However, despite the letters of protest that we sent to Harvest House Publishers, in its Web postings Harvest House still defends its “chapter on the teachings of The Local Church” claiming that it “quotes and documents those teachings accurately.” In addition, their postings include a number of additional, similarly miscast, quotes describing variously “Christianity,” “Christendom” and the “isms” as: “dead religion,” “apostate,” “deformed and degraded,” “a human religion saturated with demonic and satanic things,” “spiritual fornication,” etc. (see also “Harvest House’s Hypocrisy Concerning Our Criticism of Christianity“).

Our Biblical Critique of Organized Christianity

In each case, a reading of the entire publication would demonstrate a careful adherence to the Bible, church history and a long tradition of biblical exposition, as well an absolute distinction between our attitude toward the unbiblical system seen in today’s Christianity and our attitude toward fellow believers and the truths of the Christian faith. People are not condemned; an unscriptural system is.

Our criticism of this system runs along three lines:

  1. The replacement of Christ as the preeminent One in the believers’ lives, even as their very life, with so many substitutes;
  2. The paralyzing of the function of the members of the Body of Christ through the unscriptural clergy-laity system; and
  3. The division of the one, unique Body of Christ by the unscriptural system of denominationalism.

An examination of the out of context quotes used by Harvest House in its Web postings will show that in each case these were the issues being addressed. Because it takes considerably more space to present a matter properly than it does to sling mud, we will only cite a few examples:

1. “Christianity is not focused on the divine economy but is a human religion saturated with demonic and satanic things.”

The theme of the book from which this quote is taken is how we as believers should cooperate with God for the carrying out of His purpose, which in the Bible is called God’s economy (Gk., oikonomia, 1 Tim. 1:4). The same chapter says:

The prevailing concept in today’s Christianity is that preaching, teaching the Bible, and praying for others is the pastor’s job. A person goes to a pastor in the same way that he would go to an attorney or a doctor for specific services. This clergy-laity system annuls the functions of the members of Christ. The attendants in the so-called Christian services go there and do nothing. They do not know how to do anything. They only know how to sit there and watch a few others function. In the church life there should not be an annulling of others’ functions but a stirring up of everyone to function.1

Thus, our criticism of the organized system of Christianity relates to the clergy-laity system annulling the function of the members, thereby hindering the building up of the Body of Christ. Since the focus of God’s economy is the building up of the Body of Christ, it follows that in institutionalizing the clergy-laity system, Christianity is not focused on the accomplishment of God’s economy. Interestingly, these comments are very similar to those made by Harvest House author Dave Hunt:

Unfortunately, most of us are part-time Christians and full-time something else. As a result, we bring into the church many of the methods and ideas we have become accustomed to out in the world. We trust our physician or accountant, so we think it should work the same way in matters of religion: There must be some professional whom we should trust as the expert who understands the things of the Spirit which we don’t have the time or capacity to learn.

God will not tolerate such an approach. We cannot abdicate our moral responsibilities to someone else, no matter how godly, who will then do our Bible study and prayer and thinking for us. Christianity involves a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. 2

It is difficult to understand what is the real objection of Harvest House and its authors to criticism of the human religion built up by the clergy-laity system. In a Harvest House book, James McCarthy writes:

According to Scripture, all true Christians are members of the same priesthood. It is a “holy” and “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5, 9). There is no clergy/laity distinction in the New Testament.3

Even stronger statements can be found on John Ankerberg’s Web site:

Christ clearly indicates that the false dichotomy of clergy and laity is a practice of pagans.4

Whoever came up with the clergy and the laity completely perverted what the Word of God says. Every believer filled with the Spirit of God is in the ministry.5

Furthermore, the passage from which Harvest House extracted the one sentence they quote is speaking of the organized system of Christianity taking the place of the living person of Christ.

God does not want a religion, but He surely wants to see His economy accomplished. We are not here for religion but for God’s economy, which is to propagate His completed Christ to produce the church as the Body of such a Christ. Christianity is not focused on the divine economy but is a human religion saturated with demonic and satanic things. This natural, human, traditional, and cultural religion is full of organizations. Without organizations, Christianity could not survive. The Catholic Church and all the denominations depend upon organization. Although we do not like to have organization, sometimes the leading brothers in some of the localities brought in and trusted in their organization. We must realize that organization kills. We trust in the living Spirit. The church as the Body of Christ should be a divine organism full of the living Spirit.6

By stripping Witness Lee’s comments of their context, Harvest House avoids the substantive questions raised. Who can deny that today’s Christianity as a whole is characterized by organization, not the living Person of Christ? Who can deny that the clergy-laity system has had the overall effect of replacing the priesthood of all believers with a system relegating spiritual service to professionals?

2. “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…. The traditional way of [church] meeting.builds up something satanic and demonic.”

Here Harvest House lapses into the despicable habit of eliding statements to obscure their substance. Such a practice is not considered ethical even among unbelievers. The two sentences quoted are actually extracted from two different paragraphs. Here is the full text of those two paragraphs:

My burden is to open up the real situation of today’s Christianity that we may know where we should go and where we should remain. We should stand for the testimony of Jesus in this age. We need to compare what is revealed in the Bible with what is 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. The preaching of the gospel and the teaching of the Bible do take place in Christianity. But in a larger sense, the religious practice of Christianity kills the living members of Christ and annuls the organic function of the members of the Body of Christ. This religious system also involves the building up of hierarchy.

We must come back purely to the God-ordained way to practice the New Testament economy so that God can operate in His Trinity to dispense His triune being into us that we may be filled and saturated with the divine being to become His very expression on this earth. This is what God wants today. Christianity has missed this, and God is recovering this in His recovery. The way to meet is not a small matter. The traditional way of meeting kills and annuls the functions of the members of the Body of Christ and builds up something satanic and demonic. 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.7

The third sentence of the first paragraph clearly states what the yardstick is for measuring our Christian practice-the Bible. It is in comparison with the divine revelation in the Bible that the term degraded is applied to the system of today’s Christianity. Then Witness Lee explains what he means. It is degraded in that its practices kills the members of the Body of Christ and annuls their function.

In the following paragraph he explains further why that degradation is so serious. God desires to carry out the building up of the Body of Christ through His dispensing of Himself into His believers. The proper Christian meeting is one that nourishes this life and supplies the believers with the riches of Christ as life so that they may grow in Christ for the building up of His Body. If our meetings as Christians do not accomplish this, they in fact become a frustration to God in the accomplishment of His purpose. It is only when Christians meet in mutuality with Christ as their unique goal and center that God can operate freely to carry out His purpose. Anything short of this is a degradation that builds up something else, a system that is used by God’s enemy to frustrate His purpose. Again Harvest House has chosen not to address the issue raised, but to attempts to scandalize its readers with the terms “satanic and demonic.” For Harvest House’s own use of these terms, see “Harvest House’s Hypocrisy Concerning Our Criticism of Christianity.”

3. “We are still in a situation in which we need the Lord’s rescue, the Lord’s recovery. I am afraid that a number of us are still under the negative influence of Christendom. We all have to realize that today the Lord is going on and on to fully recover us and bring us out of Christendom.”

In order to understand the context of this statement, we need to consider two portions. On the preceding page Witness Lee says:

The Lord’s recovery is for bringing us out of this unscriptural system and back to the beginning of the pure practice of the church life according to the divine revelation. In this proper church life, there were no religion, no outward regulations, no rituals, and no vain doctrines or teachings. The saints were exercised to be in the spirit to enjoy Christ, to experience Christ, and to express and speak Christ in a corporate way.8

The subject, therefore, of Witness Lee’s speaking is the need to be recovered from an unscriptural system to practice the church according to the divine revelation of the Bible. Furthermore, he is speaking about the shortage among the believers in their experience of Christ as God’s unique gift to man (John 3:16). On the same page from which Harvest House excerpted the quote they used, Witness Lee says:

Nothing is as important or as strategic in the New Testament as the oneness of the believers. The Lord Jesus prayed that we all would be one (John 17:21). Some maintain that they want to be scriptural, but in their exercise to be scriptural, they divide the saints. Nothing is more unscriptural than to divide the saints.9

One of the unscriptural aspects of today’s Christendom is the divided condition of the Body of Christ. All genuine Christians subscribe to a core set of beliefs which constitute the faith, for which the New Testament says we must contend (Jude 3). However, the Lord would never approve of the multitudinous divisions of His Body over many minor doctrinal differences and teachings.

In context, in the portion that Harvest House quotes, Witness Lee is speaking about our need as believers to care for the one Body of Christ by being persons who are in the Spirit (Eph. 4:4).

Eventually, the entire Bible consummates with the Spirit and the bride (Rev. 22:17a). By God’s work throughout the ages, all the saints and the Spirit speak the same thing. All the many saints are one bride. Are we one bride today? In a sense we are, but we may still be holding on to our concepts and opinions that damage the one accord. We are still in a situation in which we need the Lord’s rescue, the Lord’s recovery. I am afraid that a number of us are still under the negative influence of Christendom. We all have to realize that today the Lord is going on and on to fully recover us and bring us fully out of Christendom. The Lord desires something fully in the spirit.

By omitting the context of Witness Lee’s exhortation to care for the Spirit and the Body, Harvest House distorts his meaning, opting for cheap shots instead of meaningful evaluation. Their approach leaves unanswered the critical question: Are these criticisms accurate or not? Is it true or not that as believers we need to be rescued from the unscriptural system that characterizes today’s Christendom? Is it true or not that we need to be brought back to Christ as the pre-eminent One in our lives, even as our very life? Is it true or not that the proper spiritual function in the priesthood of all believers needs to be recovered? Is it true or not that the division of the Body of Christ over so many petty disagreements and personal ambitions is a shameful condition among the Lord’s people?

Conclusion

We believe that the biblical examination of the issues of the preeminence of Christ in the lives of the believers, the recovery of the function of all the members of the Body of Christ, and the practice of the genuine oneness of the Body of Christ are issues that are worthy of our careful consideration and fellowship in the Body of Christ generally. We do not believe that our fellow believers are served by the divisive and misleading tactics Harvest House has resorted to in its Web postings.

Notes:

1 Witness Lee, The God-Ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), p. 30.

2 Dave Hunt, Beyond Seduction (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1987), p. 120.

3 John R. Waiss and James G. McCarthy, Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 137.

4 Greg Durel, “The Primacy of Peter,” https://www.jashow.org/articles/.

5 Wayne A. Barber, “The Unsung Heroes of the Faith-Ephesians 6:21-22,” https://www.jashow.org/articles/.

6 Witness Lee, The God-Ordained Way, p. 29.

7 Ibid., p. 35.

8 Witness Lee, The History of the Church and the Local Churches, third printing, 2003 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1991), p. 131.

9 Ibid., p. 132.

Response to the Accusation that the Local Churches are Litigious

Posted on by

Throughout the lawsuit, Defendants Harvest House Publishers, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon attempted to tar the local churches and Living Stream Ministry as “litigious” by making repeated comparisons to the Church of Scientology. In their brief to the Court of Appeals they stated:

The Local Churches also meet the public-figure criteria set forth in the Church of Scientology of California opinion. The Local Churches are notoriously litigious with a history of decades of legal actions and threats against those who criticize their publications, teachings, or leaders.

A Hollow Claim

We believe a few simple facts will show the hollowness of this claim.

The following is a breakdown of the participation of the Plaintiffs in litigation prior to the Harvest House action:

  • Living Stream Ministry had never been involved in a lawsuit.
  • Seventy-four of the plaintiff churches had never been involved in a lawsuit.
  • Nineteen of the plaintiff churches were involved as plaintiffs in The Mindbenders litigation.
  • One of the planitiff churches was involved in The God-Men litigation.
  • The Harvest House action was the first litigation filed by any of the plaintiff churches since the The God-Men case in 1980.
  • The Harvest House was only the third litigation initiated by any of the plaintiffs individually or collectively.

By contrast, according to the authors in the book at issue, the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR), “Scientology has filed hundreds of lawsuits against its critics.”1 A search of Westlaw performed in August 2004 turned up over 300 case citations involving Scientology, and these represent only those cases which have gone to higher courts on appeal.

All three of the litigations filed by the any of the plaintiffs have been related to the same source. The Mindbenders chapter and The God-Men were both developed from the same draft manuscript. John Weldon, the primary author of ECNR, worked with the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) during the time both the draft manuscript and The God-Men itself was written. He continued working with SCP while the litigation over that book was going on. He corresponded with the author of The God-Men and asked Neil Duddy to review his own manuscript on “The Local Church”.2 (view) The manuscripts that eventually became the basis for the present Encyclopedia were developed during that time. Even a cursory examination of John Weldon’s drafts of “The Local Church” chapter show that he relied heavily on The God-Men as a source. That source was thoroughly condemned as false and defamatory in the judge’s Statement of Decision in 1985.

Lawsuits Filed by Harvest House

During a 2006 radio broadcast Harvest House President Bob Hawkins, Jr., said, “We’ve never had any lawsuits in the past over the 32 years that we’ve been in business, so this was the very first one.”3 Actually, that is not true. Harvest House had filed at least six lawsuits against mostly small Christian bookstores over credit issues.

Location Defendant Status Date Amount
Harris County, TX Frank Fleener, individual, and DBA Good News Bible Bookstore 05/26/1977 $286.49
Harris County, TX Joseph W. Simpson, individual, and DBA New Life 04/16/1984 $789.08
Westchester County, NJ Earl D. Darling and Living Light Christian Bookstore 08/10/1988 $1658.00
Maryland District Court Great Christian Book, Inc. 09/20/1999 $8965.77
New Jersey Superior Court Barbara Cobb 04/26/2000 $311.23
State of California, San Bernardino County Castles Christian Book Center 10/01/2001 $2474.00

These lawsuits were purely pecuniary in nature, meaning they were all the type of lawsuit that Paul specifically condemned in 1 Cor. 6. In addition, Harvest House:

  • Sued the Church in Fullerton, Inc., prior to the present litigation.
  • Sued its own insurance company over a $2,000,000 policy to cover their expenses in the present litigation over ECNR.
  • Was sued by (and settled with) one of its employees for wrongful termination in a case that involved charges of tampering with that employee’s e-mail by Harvest House management.

This list is by no means exhaustive. It simply illustrates that the hypocritical smearing of the local churches as “litigious” by Harvest House, its authors, and its lawyers in their callous attempt to prejudice both the courts and the public demonstrates a willingness to substitute self-interest for truth.

Notes:

1John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1999), pp. XXVI-XXVII.

2Letter from Linda Duddy to John Weldon, March 4, 1981.

3Robert Hawkins, Jr., on “Point of View” broadcast, March 14, 2006.

Misrepresenting the Lawsuit and Our Objections to ECNR

Posted on by

Throughout the entire course of the litigation the Defendants consistently misrepresented both the nature of the case and of our objections to the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR). Specifically:

  1. They misrepresented the case as a theological dispute which falls outside the proper jurisdiction of the court system.
  2. They repeatedly and falsely stated that we did not object to the content of “The Local Church” chapter.
  3. They distorted the history of our protests concerning the false and defamatory statements made in ECNR.

All three of these efforts constitute a false witness to our fellow believers.

  1. The lawsuit was never a theological dispute but was always focused on the injury done to our reputation through ECNR‘s attribution of criminal and immoral behaviors.
  2. Beginning from early 2001 (Multiple links) of us and of our teachings in “The Local Church” chapter.
  3. The history of our protests and the lack of meaningful response from Harvest House, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon show a callous disregard for the damaging impact of their false representation of our churches and ministry.

The Lawsuit Over ECNR Is Not About Theology

Posted on by

The Defendants consistently tried to spin the litigation over the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions as a theological dispute. In their brief to the Court of Appeals they accused the Plaintiffs of using “legal action to silence their theological critics.”1 However, a reading of the Original Petition (see particularly paragraphs 162 (view) and 183 (view)) filed in the case clearly demonstrates that the case had nothing to do with theology. Anyone who has reviewed the trial court proceedings and the depositions in this case also knows that the Defendants’ statement miscasts the nature of the case.

The local churches and Living Stream Ministry have always recognized that the legal system is not the appropriate venue to resolve theological differences. The issues raised in the Harvest House case, as well as in the two libel actions filed in the 1980s, are not theological in nature. They are concerned with false and defamatory accusations of criminal, immoral, and anti-social conduct.

The success of the Defendants’ campaign to distort the nature of our lawsuit is evident in a Christianity Today editorial about the litigation that states, “…there just might be a better way to solve theological disputes.”4 We do not criticize the editors of CT for misunderstanding the present litigation as a theological dispute. The Defendants have done their best to obscure the true issues by casting it as such.

Notes:

1Brief of Appellants, p. 44.

2Original Petition, Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al, paragraph 16.

3Original Petition, Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al, paragraph 18.

4“Loose Cult Talk,” editorial in Christianity Today, vol. 50, no. 3, March 2006, p. 27.

Our Objections to “The Local Church” Chapter in ECNR

Posted on by

During a 2006 Point of View radio broadcast, John Ankerberg stated, “…the Local Church did not challenge us on anything we said in the chapter about them.”1 Later in the same broadcast he said, “…and they never took exception to anything we said about them theologically in our chapter.”2 The Defendants’ attorney, Shelby Sharpe, said the same thing on the same broadcast: “And the truth here was not only what was said in the book, which, by the way, they did not attack anything written expressly about them…”3

Their Claims Are False

Even in a narrow legal sense, these statements are not true. Paragraph 7 of our Original Petition states: “The section of the Encyclopedia entitled ‘The Local Church’ grossly distorts Plaintiffs and takes out of context many statements in order to present a misleading and incorrect view of Plaintiffs.”4 (view) (See also paragraph 195 (view) of the Petition.) However, since many of the misrepresentations in “The Local Church” chapter are not matters directly related to criminal or immoral conduct, they do not come under the purview of the court system and were not made the subject of the litigation. That does not mean that they were acknowledged as being true. To the contrary, in our letter to Harvest House and its authors we provided extensive documentation of the book’s misrepresentation of our teachings, documentation to which they have never responded and which they do not even acknowledge in their public statements (see “Exhibit B: ECNR‘s Specific Misrepresentations Concerning the Local Churches”6 (view) and “Exhibit C: Quotation Abuse and Distortions in ‘Doctrinal Summary'”7 (view)).

The publisher, the authors, and the attorneys for the Defendants are all well aware of this. Both the publisher and the authors received copies of that documentation and it was frequently referenced during the depositions taken for the case.8 (view), 9 (view), 10 (view), 11 (view)

Sworn Testimony Contradicts Their Statements

The deposition of Dan Towle contains the following exchange:

Q. Mr. Towle, I’m going to hand you a copy of the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, the book that is at issue in this case, and what I want to ask you, and if you would take time to look at it, if you need to, but looking just at the material on page 211 and 212 of the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions. Tell me if there is anything within those two pages which The Local Church, the unincorporated association, contends to be factually inaccurate?

A. Let me preface my comments by saying that before the lawsuit was filed, months before, The Local Church did submit to Harvest House and Ankerberg and Weldon a detailed analysis of this chapter pointing out everything that we claim was wrong with it, so I’m not saying sitting here today I can remember every single thing, but you have it in writing.

Dan Towle then proceeded for over 11 pages of testimony to identify point after point in “The Local Church” chapter that was in error. 12 (view) John Ankerberg and Bob Hawkins, Jr., were in attendance at that deposition along with Shelby Sharpe. To pretend to the public that we never objected to the contents of “The Local Church” chapter is to perpetrate a deceit.

Self-righteous Hypocrisy

In their letter to Christianity Today (CT) regarding this litigation authors John Ankerberg and John Weldon stated:

As for the second commandment the CT editorial mentioned—loving your neighbor as yourself—that is exactly what we have applied to the Local Church and other groups we have researched and written about for decades. One never loves one’s neighbor by distorting the truth or refusing to confront error…”13

The hypocrisy in this statement is astounding. By confronting error, Ankerberg and Weldon mean confronting others’ error, because they will admit to none themselves. When given extensive documentation showing how they had distorted the truth concerning the beliefs of the local churches and the teachings of Witness Lee published by Living Stream Ministry, they obstinately refused to confront their own error or even to be open to dialog.14 (view), 15 (view), 16 (view)

What Fuller Theological Seminary and Christianity Today Say

In their letter to CT they further reject the testimony of both Fuller Theological Seminary and Christianity Today.

Fuller Theology Seminary wrote:

…[T]he 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…

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…

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…17

and

Christianity Today‘s editorial staff confirmed this finding:

… [Christianity Today] editors have asked Local Church leaders doctrinal questions, and their answers were straightforward and satisfying. We agree with a Fuller Theological Seminary study that concluded the Local Church represents a ‘genuine, historical, biblical Christian faith in every essential aspect.’18

Notes:

1John Ankerberg, on “Point of View” broadcast, March 14, 2006.

2John Ankerberg, on “Point of View” broadcast, March 14, 2006.

3J. Shelby Sharpe, on “Point of View” broadcast, March 14, 2006.

4Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, Local Church et el v. Harvest House et al, paragraph 7.

5Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, Local Church et el v. Harvest House et al, paragraph 19.

6Exhibit B: ECNR‘s Specific Misrepresentations Concerning the Local Churches attached to the letter of November 20, 2001, sent to Robert Hawkins, Jr., John Ankerberg, and John Weldon from Daniel Towle, Richard Taylor, and Andrew Yu.

7Exhibit C: Quotation Abuse and Distortions in “Doctrinal Summary” attached to the letter of November 20, 2001, sent to Robert Hawkins, Jr., John Ankerberg, and John Weldon from Daniel Towle, Richard Taylor, and Andrew Yu.

8Deposition of Robert Hawkins, Jr., 173:6-173:14.

9Deposition of John Ankerberg, 43:8-44:19.

10Deposition of John Ankerberg, 51:1-51:10.

11Deposition of John Weldon, 155:16-157:2.

12Deposition of Dan Towle, 84:6-95:17 with errata list corrections. For clarity, we have put the quotes from ECNR in blue.

13Letter from John Ankerberg and John Weldon in “Readers Write,” Christianity Today, May 2006, p. 14.

14Deposition of John Ankerberg, 139:21-143:5.

15Deposition of John Weldon, 174:4-176:8.

16Deposition of Robert Hawkins, Jr., 140:11-140:19.

17Fuller Theological Seminary, statement dated 1/5/2006.

18“Loose Cult Talk,” editorial in Christianity Today, vol. 50, no. 3, March 2006, p. 27.

Harvest House President Bob Hawkins’ Distortion of History

Posted on by

In 2006, Harvest House President Bob Hawkins, Jr., appeared as a guest on the Point of View broadcast.1 In his comments on that broadcast he gave a very distorted view of the interactions between representatives of the local churches and Living Stream Ministry and those involved in producing the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR), namely Mr. Hawkins and the authors John Ankerberg and John Weldon. In this article we will examine Mr. Hawkins’ (BH) statements and contrast them with the actual historical facts.

Statement 1:

[BH] Originally, it was back in January of 2001 when we first heard the word that the Local Church was concerned with our publication, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, and we received a just one-page letter. It was just general in its nature and didn’t deal with any of the specific allegations toward the Encyclopedia.

[Facts] Based on the Lord’s instruction in Matthew 18, the local churches and Living Stream Ministry (LSM) sought fellowship as brothers in Christ, not as opponents in a controversy. The letter indicated serious concerns with the content of the book, particularly the association of the local churches with the sociological characteristics of “dangerous” and “evil cults” that pose “a significant threat to society.” It asked for a face-to-face fellowship to address them.

As followers of Christ we are observing His teaching to bring this offense to the attention of our offending brothers in an attempt to be reconciled. We feel this can be best done by a time of direct fellowship, face-to-face to discuss our concerns… To that end we are offering to come to Eugene to your offices to meet with you in the near future.2 (view)

To have initiated fellowship with a long list of criticisms or demands would have immediately put the interaction on an adversarial basis and been counterproductive to the desire to engage in Christian fellowship. Nevertheless, the letter did make it clear that the objections to the book included both the contents of “The Local Church” chapter and the inclusion of the local churches and LSM in a book full of accusations of deviant practices:

Both in the chapter titled “The Local Church” and in various other parts of the book we are made to share the vilification that your authors heap upon all they label “a significant threat to society.” They do this with direct words and the innuendo that “a far darker picture could have been painted.” They write with the animus that praises “intolerance” as a “virtue” and then direct that intolerance against those, including “The Local Church,” said to be illustrative of evil cults.2 (view)

All of the language quoted is from ECNR‘s introductory sections (“How to Use This Book” and the “Introduction”), showing that from the very beginning the objections raised were related to the framing of “The Local Church” chapter by the general discussion of the deviant practices of “cults” in the book’s introductory sections.

Statement 2:

[BH] And so we followed up with a letter just a couple of days later and asking them if they could specifically let us know what their concerns were about what particular information on them in the book.

[Facts] In fact, the request for Christian fellowship by the representatives of the local churches and Living Stream Ministry was not answered by Harvest House, but was handed over to the office of an outside attorney who represents Harvest House for him to respond. Its tone gave a clear indication that Harvest House had no intention of responding positively to the request for Christian fellowship.

This office represents Harvest House Publishers of Eugene, Oregon. Please direct all future correspondence to me. Your January 11, 2001, letter has been forwarded to me for response.3 (view)

Statement 3:

[BH] And so they did respond to us but it took them four months to do that…

[Facts] Contrary to Hawkins’ account, the local churches and Living Stream Ministry did not wait four months to respond to his rejection of our request for fellowship. Due to the nature of Harvest House’s response, a second letter was written within two weeks and was sent to author John Ankerberg, again seeking to resolve the matter in Christian fellowship. That letter stated:

…As you may know, we asked Mr. Hawkins of Harvest House Publishers for such a time [of speaking face-to-face] and were refused by a letter from their attorney who offered to give us “a meaningful response” in place of the fellowship we had asked for with Mr. Hawkins. He demonstrated Harvest House’s apparent lack of interest in who we were by citing the wrong book in reference to our request. Although Harvest House has initiated the use of lawyers, we hope you will join us in preferring to settle this in a more Christian manner.4 (view)

The next month attempts were made to contact Ankerberg during the National Religious Broadcasters’ convention, but he did not return calls. Bob Hawkins was no doubt aware of our attempts to contact Ankerberg, because Harvest House produced a copy of a subsequent letter we wrote to Ankerberg which mentions them. That letter said:

We wrote to you in January on behalf of the group you describe as “The Local Church(es).” In that letter we attempted to set up a time to come to you to discuss the offense and damage your writing has caused and seek to resolve the problem as Christian brothers. We feel that this is the clear path taught in the Scriptures (Matt. 5:23-24; 18:[1]5-[1]7). We further attempted to contact you by leaving a phone message on your hotel phone in Dallas at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in February, but you did not return our call.5 (view)

Statement 4:

[BH] … so these letters went back and forth for about a year. And we just never received specific information from them with regard to what their problems were with the Encyclopedia.

[Facts] All of the letters that were sent to Hawkins, Ankerberg, and Weldon in May referenced a decision in a prior libel case and provided them with a Web site where they could review that court’s decision. The letters informed them that:

…a court of law concluded in 1985 that The Local Church is not a cult and that the many negative characteristics, such as described in your book, are libelous when applied to The Local Church (see http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/summary/judgement/completeTOC.html).6 (view), 7 (view), 8 (view)

In spite of this, both John Ankerberg and Bob Hawkins testified under oath that they had not read that statement.9 (view), 10 (view)

Statement 5:

[BH] Well, we came back to them and said we just don’t have the specific information and we, they wanted to meet with us, but we chose not to meet with them until we knew what their problems were with the book, because we didn’t want to blindly go into a conversation, so we finally received a letter in late November of 2001, where they put forth a lot of documentation and mostly it was complaints about the chapter that was only, like you say, Kerby, a page and a quarter in length, but there’s really nothing that they, when they finally sued us, they didn’t even complain about that particular chapter.

[Facts] As Hawkins well knows, there were two categories of objections to the material in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions concerning “The Local Church”:

  1. The association of the local churches and Living Stream Ministry with the criminal and immoral practices attributed by the book to cults.
  2. The misrepresentation of our teachings.

The November 20 letter addressed both of these issues. For example, concerning the deviant practices attributed to cults, it plainly stated:

For example, the book alleges that cults subject their members to “physical” and “psychological” “harm”, engage in the “perversion of sexuality,” “restrict” the “independent thought” of their members, and demand “unquestioning obedience” to group “leaders.” The authors further allege that cults engage in “occult practices,” engineer “cover ups of the group’s history” or that of its “leaders,” subject members to “intimidation,” perpetrate “deception and fraud,” engage in fraudulent “fund raising,” and issue deceptive statements concerning “financial costs.” The authors go so far as to suggest that these cults practice “witchcraft” and literally cause “cancer” in their members.11 (view)

It also cited Dr. Edward Finegan, a linguistics professor at the University of Southern California, who stated:

The clear implication to the reader is that the front matter frames each chapter. An average reader would associate the front matter with every group mentioned….and would believe all of the groups mentioned are immeasurably damaging.12 (view)

Furthermore, it extensively documented the Encyclopedia’s distortions of our teachings. Harvest House and its authors has never responded to any of the material provided to them except to publish more unbalanced and out of context excerpts from the ministry of Witness Lee on the Internet.

In Hawkins’s response to the November 20 letter, he says:

I assure you that the points made in your letter will be carefully reviewed and evaluated, and an appropriate response will be provided to you as soon as it can be prepared.13 (view)

This was never done. Instead, the authors busily set themselves to broaden their attack on Living Stream Ministry and the local churches in the next printing of the Encyclopedia. Then, while the local churches and Living Stream Ministry were still seeking in good faith to resolve the issues surrounding the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions without resorting to the courts, Harvest House filed suit against The Church in Fullerton.14 (view) That, apparently was Harvest House’s idea of an “appropriate response” to the local churches and Living Stream Ministry providing what they had asked for to initiate dialog (see A Brief Chronology of Events for details).

Conclusion

This article’s account of the history of the attempts by the local churches and LSM to engage in fellowship with Harvest House and its authors is confirmed in the lawsuit Harvest House filed in Oregon.15 (view) The contents of the Amended Complaint demonstrate that Harvest House did understand the nature of the protests by the churches and LSM, contrary to Bob Hawkins’ public statements otherwise.

Notes:

1Robert Hawkins, Jr., “Point of View” broadcast, March 14, 2006.

2Letter to Robert Hawkins, Jr., from Daniel Towle, Richard Taylor, and Andrew Yu, January 11, 2001.

3Letter from Leonard D. DuBoff to Daniel Towle, Richard Taylor, and Andrew Yu, January 19, 2001.

4Letter to John Ankerberg from Daniel Towle and Andrew Yu, January 31, 2001.

5Letter to John Ankerberg from Daniel Towle, Richard Taylor, and Andrew Yu, May 24, 2001.

6Letter to Robert Hawkins, Jr., from Daniel Towle, Richard Taylor, and Andrew Yu, May 16, 2001. The page containing the Table of Contents for the Statement of Decision in The God-Men case has been moved to http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/god-men/decision/completeTOC.html.

7Letter to John Ankerberg from Daniel Towle, Richard Taylor, and Andrew Yu, May 24, 2001.

8Letter to John Weldon from Daniel Towle, Richard Taylor, and Andrew Yu, May 24, 2001.

9Deposition of John Ankerberg, 144:7-145:3.

10Deposition of Robert Hawkins, Jr., 359:11-359:18.

11Letter to Robert Hawkins, Jr., cc’d to John Ankerberg and John Weldon from Andrew Yu, Richard Taylor, and Daniel Towle, November 20, 2001.

12Letter to Robert Hawkins, Jr., cc’d to John Ankerberg and John Weldon from Andrew Yu, Richard Taylor, and Daniel Towle, November 20, 2001.

13Letter to Andrew Yu, Daniel Towle, and Richard Taylor from Robert Hawkins, Jr., November 29, 2001.

14Complaint – Declaratory Judgment, Harvest House Publishers v. The Church in Fullerton, filed in the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon, County of Lane, December 14, 2001.

15Amended Complaint, Harvest House Publishers v. The Church in Fullerton, filed in the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon, County of Lane, December 31, 2001. (Note: There is, however, an inaccuracy in the account in Harvest House’s complaint. Paragraph 12 places the response from Harvest House’s counsel after the first letter to Ankerberg and designates Harvest House’s counsel as “Plaintiffs’ counsel,” meaning that he represented both Harvest House and Ankerberg. Both of those assertions are incorrect.)

Harvest House Misrepresents Their Own Definition of “Cult”

Posted on by

Harvest House, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon claim that the word “cult” as used in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR) is a theological term. In a corporate statement published on their Web site Harvest House Publishers says:

Rather, the authors included the 1 -page chapter on the Local Church’s teachings in the Encyclopedia based on the book’s definition of a religious cult: “a separate religious group generally claiming compatibility with Christianity but whose doctrines contradict those of historic Christianity….”1 [ellipsis in original]

Similarly, in a letter to the editors of Christianity Today, Harvest House President Bob Hawkins, Jr., wrote:

In fact the word was not bandied about recklessly; it was defined carefully and responsibly to speak of groups “whose doctrines contradict those of historic Christianity.”2

The problem is these two statements present only half of this particular definition of “cult” from ECNR. The full sentence in the book’s Introduction is as follows:

For our purposes, and from a Christian perspective, a cult may be briefly defined as “a separate religious group generally claiming compatibility with Christianity but whose doctrines contradict those of historic Christianity and whose practices and ethical standards violate those of biblical Christianity.”3 [emphasis added]

Strikingly, this definition of “cult” has two parts, one of which Harvest House and its President Bob Hawkins, Jr., totally deleted in their public relations-motivated attempts to rehabilitate the book’s definition. The book’s definition of “cult” includes deviant practices grounded in unethical standards.4

Conclusion

Thus, the local churches and Living Stream Ministry would not have been included in the book if the authors did not intend to say they participate in unethical and deviant practices. The book declares that “The Local Church” along with all other groups in the Encyclopedia deserve the name “cult”.5 The rest of the Introduction amplifies this definition by illustrating the types of “practices and [un]ethical standards” “cults”, including “The Local Church”, are being accused of. The Introduction is packed with rampant accusations and examples of the kinds of criminal and immoral conduct it says are “characteristic” (i.e., “an essential element”) of cults. The introductory material also points the reader to the book’s appendix for more information. There cults are accused of occultism and idolatry, which are in turn associated by the authors with murder and “inevitably” human sacrifice.

The publisher and authors tacitly admitted that such a reading was reasonable when they drafted a revision to “The Local Church” chapter which said:

The Local Church, with about 2500? [sic] churches globally, is unique among the groups in this encyclopedia. It is not a cult in the negative sense of the term, nor do the characteristics of cults in the Introduction generally apply to them.6

Claiming that “cult” is merely used as a theological term in the Encyclopedia has become Harvest House’s “lie of convenience.” It has served the purpose of the Defendants, but an honest examination of the facts shows it to be untrue.

Notes:

1Harvest House Publishers, “Corporate Statement,” January 6, 2006.

2Robert Hawkins, Jr., Letter to the Editors, Christianity Today, May 2006, p. 12.

3John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1999), p. XXII.

4It also draws a distinction between “cults,” “sects,” and “aberrational Christian groups.” According to the Encyclopedia, a group that holds heretical doctrines (in the eyes of the authors) but is not guilty of deviant behaviors is a “sect.” Groups that are more or less sound doctrinally but contain “some or many of the behavioral or other aberrations found in cults: authoritarianism, isolationism, financial exploitation, elitism, legalism, spiritual and psychological intimidation” are labeled as “aberrational Christian groups.” All of the groups listed in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions are identified as “cults”. Based on these distinctions, it is clear that groups identified as “cults” are being accused of both categories of deviations—theological and sociological, the latter including criminal, moral, and social deviancies.

5Ankerberg and Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, p. XXI: “…the groups herein deserve the title, even if they disagree.”

6Draft of “The Local Church of Witness Lee,” December 2001.