Author Archive: DCPPress

Harvest House Books Echo Our Criticism of Christianity

Posted on by

Harvest House along with John Ankerberg and John Weldon, the authors of the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, consistently claim that their standard of truth is “biblical Christianity.” However, in order to attack Living Stream Ministry and the local churches, they obscure our distinction between the biblical Christian faith and the organized system of Christianity.

The Unique Standard—The Bible

The unique standard for evaluating everything related to our Christian life is the Bible. Even the church is not above criticism. As Harvest House and its authors themselves espouse in quoting Walter M. Horton in their book Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree?:

The fundamental protestant idea is that the Church is not above judgment, inerrant and “self-authenticating” as though she were God Himself; she is the servant of God’s Word, and must perpetually be judged by her degree of conformity to the Word.1

It is therefore fundamentally dishonest on the part of Harvest House to assail our biblically-based critique concerning the present state of Christendom with its many un-biblical teachings and practices. Our criticism is thoroughly based on the divine revelation in the Bible, a fact that Harvest House and its authors never acknowledge and consistently attempt to conceal. The quotes Harvest House uses to attack Living Stream Ministry and the local churches are carefully selected and excised to exclude their scriptural basis, thus obscuring the fact that what is actually being criticized is the deviation of today’s Christendom from the biblical revelation.

Organized Christianity’s Deviations

As we have stated elsewhere, our criticism of the organized system of Christianity runs along three primary lines:

  1. The replacement of the normal experience of Christ in the lives of the believers with so many substitutes, including unscriptural things such as philosophy and culture and including the misuse of many scriptural things, such as doctrine, gifts, knowledge, etc.
  2. The nullification of the proper function of every member of the Body of Christ in serving the Lord by the unscriptural clergy/laity system.
  3. The division of the one unique Body of Christ into so many denominations and free groups.

In contrast, what is revealed in the New Testament is:

  1. An unsearchably rich Christ (Eph. 3:8) living in (Gal. 2:20), growing in (Col. 2:19), transforming (2 Cor. 3:18), and being formed in (Gal. 4:19) the believers;
  2. A universal priesthood of believers in which all believers serve the Lord in mutuality (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rom. 12:4-5); and
  3. One universal Body of Christ encompassing all believers past, present, and future (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:4) manifested practically as local churches city by city (Acts 8:1; 13:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; Rev. 1:11).

Christianity’s Deviations Acknowledged

It is hard to understand Harvest House’s objection to our criticism of the failures of Christianity when measured against this biblical standard. In fact, recently Harvest House published a book which echoed at least in part the same themes. In Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical, James McCarthy wrote:

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. In the so-called “Christian countries” of the world, relatively few people have any real knowledge of the Scriptures or can explain the gospel of Jesus Christ.2

Is this not a tragedy? If what McCarthy says is true, and we have no reason to doubt it, it means that most people in Christendom do not understand the basics of the Christian faith, much less are they growing properly in Christ. In the same book, McCarthy wrote:

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

Earlier in the same book, he also wrote:

Scripture refers to each group of Christians by the city or town in which it was located: “the church in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), “the church at Antioch” (Acts 13:1), “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Corinthians 1:2). We sometimes call these local churches to distinguish them from the church as a whole, or the universal church.4

Positively speaking, the history of the church has been a history of reactions against degradations, a history of the recovery of the precious truths concerning the life and practice of the believers as revealed in the Bible. Such a recovery has always involved a prophetic ministry that called believers back to the biblical standard. Martin Luther reacted against the replacement of justification by faith with a system of works. The Wesleys and George Whitefield reacted against limiting the preaching of the gospel to church sanctuaries and began to preach in public. The Plymouth Brethren reacted against the divisions in the Body of Christ, simply desiring to meet together as brothers in Christ. In each case, the reaction was a form of “protest” against the unbiblical teachings and practices that had entered the church and was met with great hostility by the religious establishment.

Conclusion

As believers we should seriously consider whether the current situation among us is pleasing and satisfying to our God. Is He pleased when we are occupied with gifts, forms, knowledge, and doctrines and neglect the living Person of His Son and His desire to live in us (Gal. 2:20), grow in us(Col. 2:19), transform us (2 Cor. 3:18), and be formed in us (Gal. 4:19)? Is He pleased when we abdicate our spiritual responsibility to serve Him, neglecting to preach the gospel, to shepherd other believers, and to teach the truth? Is He pleased when we care more for our petty preferences or doctrines instead of caring for the reality of the Body of Christ and the practice of the genuine oneness with other believers based on our common Christian faith? Who can dispute that believers generally need to be awakened to pursue Christ that they may gain Him and be gained by Him so that His desire in redeeming them can be realized? Is there no room in the church today for correction by the Word of God? Far from “defending the faith,” Harvest House and its authors, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, have done the Body of Christ a great disservice by attacking a ministry that is awakening believers to the unsearchable riches of their inheritance in Christ, to restore them to their proper function in God’s priesthood, and to recover the genuine oneness of the Body of Christ.

Harvest House, in promoting Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical on its Web site, states:

This book presents a unique collection of correspondence between two friends who have spent many hours discussing their faiths-one a Catholic priest, the other an evangelical minister. Their candid dialogue illustrates how we can talk about opposing beliefs without resorting to criticism that is mean-spirited, sensationalistic, or inaccurate….

The fresh insights bring clarity and respect to both sides of the ongoing dialogue between Catholics and evangelical Christians, and readers will benefit by being able to make their own informed conclusions about the differences.5 (view)

We would ask Harvest House: Why did you abandon these principles when you attacked Living Stream Ministry and the local churches. This evident double standard is all the more troubling if you consider “Harvest House’s Hypocrisy Concerning Our Criticism of Christianity.”

Notes:

1Walter M. Horton, Christian Theology (1955), quoted in John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), p. 211.

2James R. Waiss and James G. McCarthy, Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 357.

3Ibid., p. 137.

4Ibid., p. 118.

5Web page for Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical: From Debate to Dialogue on the Issues That Separate Us from the Harvest House Publishers corporate Web site. The link is to a PDF file generated from http://web.archive.org/web/20050222203032/http://www.harvesthousepubl.com/book.cfm?ProductID=6909893http://www.harvesthousepubl.com/book.cfm?ProductID=6909893 on 08/22/06. The original page is subject to change by Harvest House Publishers.

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.

Amicus Brief from Prominent Religion and Social Science Scholars (Texas Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Several prominent religious scholars in the fields of religious studies and the social sciences submitted an amicus brief calling on the Texas Supreme Court to review the Texas Court of Appeals ruling in The Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al. The brief argued that the appeals court decision failed to properly balance First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech against the social values underlying defamation law in ruling that wrongfully calling a group a cult was merely a matter of religious belief, when the book in question—Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions—attributed criminal and other evil behaviors to such groups. The brief was signed by:

  • Rodney Stark, Ph.D., Author, Co-Director, Institute for Studies of Religion and University Professor of the Social Sciences, Baylor University;
  • Derek H. Davis, J.D., Ph.D., Dean of the Graduate School at University of Mary Hardin-Baylor;
  • 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.
  • J. Gordon Melton, Ph.D., Founder and Director of Institute for the Study of American Religion, Santa Barbara, California;
  • H. Newton Malony, Ph.D., Author, Senior Professor of Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychology, at Fuller Theological Seminary;
  • Stuart A. Wright, Ph.D., Author, Professor of Sociology and Assistant Director for Research and Sponsored Programs Administration, Lamar University;
  • Rev. Jerry Smith, CEO of Latham Springs Baptist Encampment;
  • Ronald B. Flowers, Ph.D., Author, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Texas Christian University;
  • William L. Pitts, Ph.D., Author, Professor of History of Christianity and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Religion, Baylor University;
  • Mark G. Toulouse, Ph.D., Author, Professor of American Religious History at Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University;

Amicus Brief from Prominent Scholars (Texas Supreme Court)

Amicus Brief from Publishers and Broadcasters (Texas Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Seven men with extensive experience in the publishing and broadcasting industries submitted an amicus brief supporting the local churches’ request to the Texas Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision in The Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al. The brief said that granting review would allow the court to strike the right balance between First Amendment rights and “the right of religious organizations to be free of unsubstantiated denigration of their reputations.” It also argued that publishers of books on religion should be held to the same standards of defamation and that Christian and secular organizations should enjoy the same protections when falsely accused of criminal or abhorrent conduct.
The signers of the brief were:

Amicus Brief from Publishers and Broadcasters (Texas Supreme Court)

Amicus Brief re: International Impact (Texas Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Eight individuals submitted an amicus brief to the Texas Supreme Court attesting to the damaging effect of the Texas Court of Appeals decision in The Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al. The brief pointed out that the court’s decision to ignore the secular definition of the term cult, which was part of the operative definition used in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions would be potentially immensely damaging in parts of the world with repressive governments.
The brief was signed by:

PDF of Amicus Brief from International Experts (Texas Supreme Court)

Amicus Brief from Hank Hanegraaff (Texas Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Hank Hanegraaff, President of the Christian Research Institute, submitted a letter brief to the Texas Supreme Court, asking the justices to review and reverse the Court of Appeals decision in The Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al. Hanegraaff’s brief stated his own findings that the local churches are not a cult from either a sociological or theological perspective. He concluded:

Finally, to apply the sociologically charged and increasingly connotative wor “cult” to the Local Church can have dramatic and dangerous ramifications. This could be particularly harmful to any group, such as the Local Church, with large constituencies in religiously intolerant societies. The Texas Court of Appeals decision establishing a legal precedent protecting the use of the word “cult” would be potentially damaging to countless innocent Christians. Therefore, it should be reviewed and reversed by the Texas Supreme Court.

PDF of Amicus Brief from Hank Hanegraaff (Texas Supreme Court)

Petition for Review

Posted on by

This document is the official Petition for Review submitted by the local churches to the Texas Supreme Court as the first step in appealing 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 Review

Five amicus briefs were submitted in support of the Petition for Review. These briefs were submitted by:

After the Texas Supreme Court declined to review the case, an additional amicus brief written by Dr. Rodney Smolla, Dean and George Allen Professor of Law and the University of Richmond School of Law and author of the two-volume set Law of Defamation, was submitted in support of a Motion for Rehearing.

Why Are We Continuing Our Legal Efforts?

Posted on by

Current Situation

We are grateful to the Lord for the warm fellowship which He has provided us with many Evangelical friends over the past five years. In particular we are very happy about the statement issued in January by Fuller Theological Seminary chronicling our two years of mutually edifying fellowship. The editors of Christianity Today have also shown Christian love and fairness in engaging in fellowship with us and we are thankful to the Lord for their honest opinion as well as their agreement with Fuller’s statement. The Evangelical Christian Publishers Association was the first to engage in dialogue with us in the process of our communication with other Evangelical publishers. There are numerous other Evangelical believers who heard us and took it as their own burden to straighten out the many misunderstandings of the past. It is not because we are unappreciative that we have decided we must continue this struggle. We hear your comments that now we have, in fact, “won the war” and therefore, do not need to continue this battle. In this we have endeavored very much to pray and to seek guidance from the Lord. While we are reminded of our duty for Christian charity, we are also cognizant of our responsibility to keep watch over the interest of God’s allotment to us (Acts 20:31; 1 Pet 5:2-3). We ask your indulgence while we try to help you understand our very difficult position and the danger and damages that have already resulted from the book itself (ECNR) and further problems that have arisen from the recent ruling of the Texas Court of Appeals.

In the days following the Texas decision we began to hear from the many house churches in China that follow our teaching and practices. We heard words of great concern for how they could prepare for the new wave of persecution to come “now that we are a ‘cult.'” A crucial point that some Evangelicals seem to miss is that there are many governments on this earth that understand the word “cult”, not as theology, but as a threat to their society and a justification for persecution. This week further information came to us from Zhejiang province that government officials have approached our brothers to tell them that through the internet they have learned that a Texas court has now labeled them a cult. It was a warning of things to come.

The Result of the “Friends of the Court”

Now, we would earnestly like to ask our Evangelical brothers how we should answer these cries for help. Must we tell them that a group of American Evangelicals collaborated together as “friends of the court” to convince a Texas court that the word “cult”, even when defined with criminal characteristics, could only be understood as a theological term and thus our libel claim was negated in favor of the expression of religious speech? How shall we explain that they persuaded the court to hold Christian publishers to a lower standard than secular publishers must uphold? Perhaps those well-meaning Evangelicals did not foresee that their efforts to enhance their own freedom would be at the expense of the freedom of many others around the world. Will those Evangelicals come forward now to explain to our brothers and sisters in distant lands that some of them will have to suffer imprisonment and torture because the freedom of American publishers is more important than their lives? Although we have suffered many damages in the United States, including broken homes, due to this book, it is comparatively easier for us to turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39) than it is for those who are affected in other parts of the world. We have suffered attacks and misunderstanding for thirty years in this land where we treasure the right of all religions to express their views freely. And while it is an insult to be portrayed as enemies of freedom of speech, yet insult and imprisonment are two different kinds of cheek to turn. We would willingly suffer that insult as we endeavor to spare other genuine believers from imprisonment. In the modern history of our ministry, our brothers, from Watchman Nee on, have demonstrated their willingness to be martyred for the Lord, but we feel a great responsibility not to add to the tribulation of their followers by being passive while American books and courts provide “justification” to their tormentors.

The Need for Righteous Consequences
To Lawless Acts

In addition, we believe in the rule of law in America and that there should be righteous consequences to lawless acts. ECNR was not an accident or mistake. It was not merely “loose talk” as some have described it. The authors, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, have been closely associated with those who attacked us in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Harvest House participated in selecting the groups in the book and made numerous decisions to keep us in the book. Furthermore, they and their authors have resisted every offer to meet face to face for more than five years. The evidence established in this case makes it abundantly clear that the book was published with reckless disregard for the truth.

Implications of Texas Court Ruling

Finally, we must point out that the decision of the Texas court adds bad law to the mix and will result in innumerable problems for us all. As a result of this decision, every writer who invokes a religious context is now free to make whatever evil allegation he wishes about whomever he wishes. This ruling destroys the proper legal protection for “the little guy” and empowers the already empowered to defame those with whom they may disagree. In this particular case the ruling protects the authors and publishers in spite of their making charges as serious as murder, rape, beating disciples and drug smuggling, all because they did it in a context including “religious speech”. In setting a frightening precedent, the ruling, as it now stands, protects the word “cult” as being, by law, impossible of having any meaning other than theological. This ruling ignores both common sense and the authors’ plainly written intention- which was to use the term “cult” for the secular meaning it has to those unconcerned with theology. Consequently, this ruling opens the doors for all manner of lawless attacks that will now be protected by law! The details of the main errors of this decision are expressed in our motion for rehearing.

So, we are determined to continue this fight with all the strength and endurance the Lord grants us. If we are considered somehow less than Christian for trying to protect other believers who are helpless, we are willing to suffer that. Our efforts to help the situation in China have not been limited to the present litigation. We have endeavored in many ways to address those issues. Fuller Theological Seminary among many other Evangelical groups has pursued similar goals. We are thankful for such efforts and hope more Evangelicals could show a similar love to those neighbors in Asia. We are open to anyone who has an alternate solution that would work to solve this worldwide problem. If other members of the Lord’s Body would do more, we would be happy to do less but they would first need to get into the facts of the case. As much as we have tried to explain the facts of this case, many do not yet understand that it is not about theology (see our Original Complaint). Meanwhile, we continue to seek the Lord, opening up ourselves to Him for His gracious shining, and we ask you for your prayer and support in these matters.

Motion for Rehearing

The motion for rehearing was filed with the same appeals court that recently ruled on this case. We are asking them to reconsider and reverse their errant ruling. If they decline to hear it, we then will take it to the Texas Supreme Court with a request for their review. We feel there are numerous issues of importance that should be of interest to them. If they choose not to hear it, we can then appeal to the US Supreme Court. If the case goes all the way up to the US Supreme Court and back to the lower court for trial, there could still be years of litigation ahead of us. It is altogether premature for Harvest House and the authors to claim victory at this point. Harvest House’s lead attorney has stated that they would take this case as high as necessary, even to the US Supreme Court. Why would we do less as we have much more at stake in the matter?

All of this confrontation could have been avoided if Harvest House and the authors had made a simple and principled decision to handle this as Christians as we have repeatedly asked them for more than five years. That offer has never been taken off the table.

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Court of Appeals Decision

Posted on by

See the Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing of the Court’s January 5, 2006 Judgment filed on February 16, 2006.

On January 5, 2006, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision denying summary judgment and ruled for the Defendants.

We believe the appeals court ruling is in error. This case is not about constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, but about the abuse of that precious freedom. Neither is this case about the content of our Christian teachings and theology, however maliciously both have been distorted by the book in question.

The Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions by John Ankerberg and John Weldon contains accusations of criminal and abhorrent behavior that are attributed to “cults,” the subject of their book. The book clearly states that they chose the word cult for its “contemporary force” and “particular value for secularists.” The recent court decision failed to recognize the clear language of the book. It also failed to take into account the testimony of the authors and publisher that the book’s Introduction could be understood by readers as applying to the Local Church.

This matter has already been decided in our favor three times in the trial court by two different judges. We will seek a rehearing by the Court of Appeals and are ready to appeal this decision to the Texas Supreme Court. We believe the Court of Appeals decision will be reversed based on the facts of the case and the law. We remain steadfast in our commitment to establishing the truth and protecting from defamatory accusations the legacy of a godly Christian ministry and the reputations of countless Christian churches and believers.

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Miscellaneous Procedural and Evidentiary Court Rulings

Posted on by

April 2, 2004

  • Order overruling Defendants’ objections to summary judgment evidence. This evidence included: “Local Church” chapters drafted two years after the first printing of ECNR, as well as other affidavits and deposition testimony. The unpublished chapters admit: “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.”

April 2, 2004

  • Order denying Defendants’ motion to stay (delay) discovery during Defendants’ appeal based on his ruling in the March 31, 2004, telephone hearing.

March 31, 2004

  • In a telephone hearing Judge Kent Sullivan denied Defendants’ motion to strike all of Plaintiffs’ experts, based on Defendants’ unwillingness to affirm or deny the truth or falsity of the charges in the book regarding the Plaintiffs. Judge Sullivan ruled that all ten of the Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses may testify.

December 16, 2002

  • Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Production Of Documents

December 16, 2002

  • Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and for Limitation of Discovery

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Press Releases

Posted on by

June 28, 2007

June 7, 2007

February 13, 2007

December 12, 2006

February 27, 2006

January 16, 2006

November 1, 2005

April 20, 2004

June 20, 2003

Prelude to Conflict

Posted on by

Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF), the New Covenant Apostolic Order (NCAO), Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) & the Local Churches

Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, Campus Crusade, and the Church

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the ministry of Watchman Nee exerted a powerful influence among seeking Christians in the West. His classic book The Normal Christian Life became immensely popular after it was published in English in Mumbai, India, in 1957. Then in 1962 his book on the practice of the church according to the New Testament was published in America as The Normal Christian Church Life. Shortly after its publication, his closest co-worker, Witness Lee, immigrated to the United States and began ministering there. For the remainder of the decade Witness Lee labored in Los Angeles to build up a pattern of the church life. He also traveled throughout the United States to visit seekers eager to know Christ in a deeper way and to have a church life that matched the New Testament and Watchman Nee’s ministry.

A group of Campus Crusade for Christ leaders was among those deeply affected by The Normal Christian Church Life. This group included Jon Braun, national field coordinator; Peter Gillquist, northern (Big Ten) regional coordinator; Richard (Dick) Ballew, eastern regional coordinator; Gordon Walker, director of the Africa program; Ken Berven, director of the Canada program; and Ray Nethery, director of the Asia program. Throughout the 1960s these men grew increasingly frustrated that, although their work brought many to believe in Christ, they failed on the whole to lead students into a sustainable Christian life beyond their college years.1

A crucial turning point in 1967 was the “Berkeley blitz,” in which 600 Crusade staff and students spent a week evangelizing the University of California at Berkeley, the seedbed of campus radicalism. Of the blitz Peter Gillquist said, “Though hundreds of kids ‘prayed the prayer’ and committed their lives to the Lord, we know of only two that really followed through.”2 Gillquist wrote of discussions the Crusade staff members had their annual summer staff training:

“Why aren’t we the Church?” we would ask. “Here in the New Testament, the only thing Jesus ever started was the Church.” We loved what we were doing, but in the Book of Acts it was Church, not parachurch.3

This stirring had its roots in what they had read in The Normal Christian Church Life.

The Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF)

After the Berkeley blitz and a similar effort and result at UCLA,4 two things happened. First, Braun and his colleagues left Campus Crusade after Braun and some of them failed to persuade Crusade president Bill Bright to convert the parachurch organization into a church.5 Second, in another attempt to reach the radical subculture at the University of California at Berkeley, Campus Crusade for Christ sponsored a pilot experiment in 1969 which came to be called the Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF). Jack Sparks, a former statistics professor and Crusade staff member, quickly became its leader. The CWLF tried to project an image of radical Christianity, frequently repackaging the rhetoric and tactics of the radical subculture around a Christian message. Sparks grew a beard and long hair, dressed in overalls, and became known as “Daddy Jack.” CWLF marched, picketed, and disrupted meetings of campus groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society. They glued slogans to the windows of a counterculture newspaper and varnished over them so that they could not be removed without breaking the windows.6

Jack Sparks

Sparks (upper-left) & the CWLF

The Church in Berkeley

Another group of young Christians was also trying to reach students at UC Berkeley. These believers had been inspired by the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee to practice the oneness of the Body of Christ on the ground of oneness as the church in Berkeley and to pursue knowing Christ as their life. At one time the headquarters of the CWLF was directly across the street from the meeting place of the church in Berkeley. As the Vietnam War waned and the counterculture became less prominent, CWLF found itself eclipsed on the Berkeley scene by young people who were zealous for the gospel of Christ but who eschewed the counterculture trappings and lawless behaviors of the CWLF. When some members of the CWLF left to join the church in Berkeley, Jack Sparks denounced Witness Lee as a “wolf” and attacked the local churches as a cult.7 He reached out to Jon Braun, whom he had known while he was on staff at Campus Crusade. Braun was embittered after the rancorous breakup in 1971 of a group he had met with in Isla Vista, California.8 The group was led by Gene Edwards, an ambitious person who plagiarized Witness Lee’s ministry and passed it off as his own.9 Braun sent Sparks a tape recording in which he excoriated Witness Lee. Sparks used Braun’s criticisms in talks to CWLF members. These criticisms were also published and distributed.

New Covenant Apostolic Order (NCAO)

Sparks and his former colleagues at Campus Crusade—Braun, Gillquist, Ballew, Walker, Berven, and Nethery—began meeting together regularly in 1973 to plot a new course. In June of 1975, CWLF split apart when Sparks sought to assert his authority as an “apostle” and convert CWLF into a church with strong elements of Eastern Orthodox practice. In November of that year the seven men formed the New Covenant Apostolic Order (NCAO) and declared themselves to be its apostles.10 Sparks and five of the other NCAO leaders increasingly adopted a unique blend of evangelicalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the authoritarian practices associated with the Shepherding movement. In January 1978, when Nethery refused to go along with their direction, he was ex-communicated from the group and anathematized.11

Seven former Campus Crusade for Christ leaders of the early sixties meet in 1974 to form the New Covenant Apostolic Order, the core group that pursued Orthodox Christianity.
Left to right: Richard Ballew, Gordon Walker, Jon Braun, Ray Nethery, Jack Sparks, Ken Berven, and Peter Gillquist.

(Photo by Fr. Marc Dunaway.)

Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP)

CWLF functioned as a loose amalgam of “ministries.” By the early 1970s CWLF ministries included an underground newspaper, a free “university,” a street theater troupe, and several communal houses. In 1974 three CWLF members—Brooks Alexander, David Fetcho, and Bill Squires—formed the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) with the express intent of exposing religious movements originating in the Far East. Alexander and Fetcho had roots in both eastern mystical religions and drug use but converted to Christianity. SCP quickly rose to prominence in the evangelical world as Alexander and Squires along with Michael Woodruff, an attorney who maintained a close relationship with SCP that spanned ten years, aided the plaintiffs in a lawsuit to keep Transcendental Meditation out of public schools in New Jersey.12 The SCP leaders uncritically accepted the accusations of Braun and Sparks toward Witness Lee and the local churches. Although SCP came to reject the direction Braun and Sparks took and accused them of authoritarianism,13 SCP staff members never reassessed what Braun and Sparks had sown into them concerning either Witness Lee or the local churches.

SCP Staff

Alan Wallerstedt’s Monograph

Shortly before CWLF’s demise, Sparks commissioned a young protégé named Alan Wallerstedt to draft a monograph attacking the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches. When CWLF disbanded, the remaining parts, including SCP, formed the Berkeley Christian Coalition (BCC). Wallerstedt was one of the few who stayed with BCC yet met with Grace Catholic Church, an NCAO group Sparks founded. Wallerstedt completed his monograph in May of 1976. The manuscript drew heavily on the talks Sparks and Braun had given to CWLF members. Wallerstedt’s manuscript included a copy of a woodcut depicting a father and his two sons being taken to be burned during the repression of the Reformers and Anabaptists in the Netherlands under the direction of the Duke of Alva.14 The woodcut seems to be a window into the mindset of Sparks, Wallerstedt, and their NCAO confederates in their “war” against the local churches.15 After completing his manuscript, Wallerstedt left Berkeley, giving a copy of his paper to SCP and another to Sparks, who passed it on to Jon Braun.

Woodcut included in Wallerstedt’s manuscript

SCP Attacks the Local Churches

SCP first came to the attention of the local churches through tracts in which they characterized Witness Lee’s teaching as having “Eastern mystical” elements that promoted “mindlessness.” On the weekend of July 4-6, 1975, several hundred people attended a conference hosted by the church in Berkeley. As they were leaving the first meeting of the conference, attendees were met by a loud and confrontational group of CWLF/SCP members, one of whom had a bullhorn, stationed outside the auditorium exit, handing out leaflets and denouncing Witness Lee and “The Local Church.”

In October and November 1975, SCP sponsored workshops on heretical Eastern religions in nineteen cities across America. SCP’s advertisements indicated that the SCP workshops would include “The Local Church.” Members of the local churches attended sessions conducted by SCP director Brooks Alexander and others in Atlanta, Dallas, and Austin and publicly refuted their misrepresentations. An April 1977 SCP Newsletter stated that SCP was withdrawing all of its material on the local churches and asked for no further distribution of that material until SCP could complete “a new booklet.”

That “new booklet” was one of two related books attacking Witness Lee and the local churches that were then in development. Both came from the animus of Jack Sparks and Jon Braun manifested through the monograph drafted by Alan Wallerstedt. Braun used Wallerstedt’s manuscript in writing a chapter for inclusion in a book by Sparks called The Mindbenders. SCP developed Wallerstedt’s manuscript into its own book, The God-Men. The publication of both books in 1977 gave added force to the attack on the local churches because it appeared that the books came from two independent sources, when in fact they originated from the same manuscript.

Notes:

1 John Turner, Bill Bright & Campus Crusade for Christ: The Renewal of Evangelicalism in Postwar America (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2008), 134.

2 Transcript of interview with Peter Gillquist by Calvin Skaggs, “‘With God on Our Side’: Campus Crusade,” (New York, NY: Lumiere Productions, August 28, 1995), William Martin Religious Right research collection, Rice University, Box 74, 16-17; also Skaggs’s interview with Jon Braun in the same collection, 51, 57.

3 Peter Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox (Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1989), 15.

4 William Martin, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America (New York, Broadway Books, 1996), 94.

5 Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox, 16.

6 Lionel S. Haines, letter to James Miller. January 7, 1981; statement of John Glennon, September 13, 1980, 5-6.

7 Jack Sparks, “Theology, Anthropology and the Mystical Aberrations of Witness Lee,” talk given to CWLF members in Berkeley, California, 1973.

8 Ron Ludekens, “The Local Church of Isla Vista: aka Brothers and Sisters,” unpublished manuscript, November 28, 1973, 14-16, 20-21.

9 An early example is a message Edwards gave to current and former Crusaders at UCLA titled “God’s Eternal Purpose” in January 1969 (later known as “The UCLA Tape”). Every point of truth in his message came from the first two chapters of Witness Lee’s book The Vision of God’s Building, yet he never credited Witness Lee at all. Instead he spoke of Watchman Nee, saying that his work had been destroyed by the Communist takeover in China, and then said:

But I will not talk of that, of the work God did in the Far East through that man. I’ll not commend it to you today because of this: I sincerely believe that, as of now, right now, here today in this room God is going to do a greater thing than He has ever done before.

Edwards met intermittently with the local churches in the late 1960s, first in Tyler, Texas, and then in Los Angeles. After moving on to pursue his own ambitions to be an “apostle,” Edwards continued to visit the meeting place of the church in Los Angeles to pick up outlines from Witness Lee’s messages, which he would present as his own teaching with his own twist.

10 Ruth Stiling, “An Examination of the Evangelical Orthodox Church” (M.A. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 19.

11 Joseph H. Fester, “The Evangelical Orthodox Church and Its Dialogue with the Orthodox Church in America” (M.Div. thesis, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary, 1982), 9; Peter Gillquist, letter to NCAO churches, January 16, 1978.

12 Sarah Barringer Gordon, “Malnak v. Yogi: The New Age and the New Law,” Law and Religion: Cases in Context, Leslie C. Griffin, ed. (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2010), 11-31.

13 Bill Counts, “The Evangelical Orthodox Church and the New Covenant Apostolic Order,” Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Spring 1979.

14 The woodcut, which was the work of Jan Luiken (1649-1712) is “Burning of Jakob Dircks and his sons. Antwerp, 1568.” It appeared in Thieleman J. van. Braght, The Bloody Theatre or Martyrs’ Mirror of the Defenseless Christians Who Baptized Only upon Confession of Faith and Who Suffered and Died for the Testimony of Jesus Their Saviour … to the Year A.D. 1660.

15 Jon Braun, “My Soul Was Wounded at Watchman’s Knee,” unpublished manuscript, 24; interview with Ray Nethery, August 1, 1980; deposition of Richard Ballew, February 2, 1981: 204.

Is Our Appeal to the Courts in Accordance with Scripture?

Posted on by

Matthew 18:15-17

The Christian steps to resolve an unrighteous situation with brothers is described in Matthew 18:15-17. In accordance with this word, we wrote repeatedly to Harvest House Publishers and their authors, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, to explain their wrongdoing and the damages being caused by their book. We also asked repeatedly to meet with them in an attempt to resolve the matter. The reason for our protest was their false statements about Living Stream Ministry, The Local Church, and the local churches in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, a book which ascribes many evil traits to its subjects, including: “deception and evil,” causing “physical harm,” “degradation and perversion of sexuality,” “encouraged prostitution,” “sometimes raped women, beaten their disciples, molested children, practiced black magic and witchcraft, engaged in drug smuggling and other criminal activities, including murder,” “human sacrifice” etc.

The law in most states requires anyone who has been libeled to file suit within a specific time from “publication.” We wanted to assure that we would be within that time period, but offered Harvest House Publishers and the authors the opportunity to voluntarily extend the statute of limitations while an equitable resolution was worked out. As we continued to work in good faith to extend the statute of limitations and bring about dialogue consistent with Matthew 18, secretly, on Dec. 14, 2001, Harvest House initiated a lawsuit against us. In documents they filed in conjunction with that suit, our overtures to meet together in the biblical principle of Matthew 18 were characterized as “harassment.” After 11 months of attempting to resolve this matter peacefully as brothers in Christ, it became painfully obvious that we were not going to get a hearing with the publisher or authors. Even in the face of this, we gave them every opportunity to settle the problem in an equitable way.

Their disregard for our appeals concerning the book’s falsity, their reprinting of the book during this timeframe despite all the facts we provided to them, and finally, the filing of a lawsuit against us by Harvest House convinced us that we really had no alternative but to seek the relief that the laws of our nation allow. If we did not seek relief from this defamatory writing to the extent the law allows, then damages would continue to accumulate, as Christians and many others believed their false accusations were true. Matthew 18:15-17 sets forth the principles for Christians to attempt to resolve any unrighteous situation with any other believer. However, failing reconciliation, the Lord taught that the offending party is to be considered “just like the Gentile,” i.e. not despised, but now outside of Christian fellowship, to be related to as any other nonbeliever.

First Corinthians 6 and Acts 16, 22, and 25

In First Corinthians chapter six, the Apostle Paul rebuked the practice of an individual believer bypassing the steps in Matthew 18 and, instead of first seeking Christian reconciliation (1 Cor. 6:1-6), taking another brother directly to the law court. Paul says that it would have been better to be wronged than to defraud another believer by not presenting the matter “before the saints” and instead taking them directly to court. Although it may be implied, Scripture is silent as to whether, once fellowship and reconciliation are rejected in such a situation (Matt. 18:17b), and if the circumstances warrant it, the “Gentile” could then be taken to court by the wronged believer.

However, there is a crucial difference between the kind of “personal” lawsuits Paul condemned in First Corinthians 6 and the “appeal” he himself made to his government in the book of Acts. We believe that our appeal to the law courts for relief from this defamation is in the category of Paul’s appeals in the book of Acts. There, Paul first appealed for protection from those who attacked him and his ministry by asserting his rights under his Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37-38; 22:25). Later, when those opposing him sought to end his ministry he appealed to “Caesar’s judgment seat” and then to “Caesar”(Acts 25:10-12). Paul’s appeal to the established government of his day (see also Acts 25:14-19) was not for his personal gain (he was not afraid to die for the gospel) or to defraud anyone, but to defend and preserve the existence of the ministry the Lord had given him.

We consider the appeal to the courts by Living Stream Ministry, The Local Church and the local churches to be similar to Paul’s in Acts 25 — a necessary step for God’s interests, to continue the ministry the Lord has entrusted to us.

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Index

Posted on by

United States Supreme Court Declines Review

At the end of June, 2007, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear and rule in our case, Local Church, et al v. Harvest House, et al concerning defamatory statements in Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR) by John Ankerberg and John Weldon and published by Harvest House Publishers.

Contrary to claims otherwise, this case was never about religious, doctrinal or theological issues. It was about false and defamatory accusations of moral and criminal misdeeds thinly cloaked as a religious dispute and unsupported by fact in the work in question (ECNR).

It is important to note that no court ever ruled we are a cult: our case was never tried on its merits. Moreover, during the course of trial preparation, the authors of the book as well as Harvest House Publishers admitted that they had no evidence we had engaged in the conduct they had attributed to cults.

For more detailed information about the issues raised in this case, please read our petition and the amicus briefs linked below.

Newest Postings:

June 28, 2007

June 7, 2007

February 9, 2007

December 18, 2006

December 12, 2006

October 23, 2006

April 14, 2006

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Court Filings and Major Court Rulings

Posted on by

United States Supreme Court

June 28, 2007 [Press Release on the U.S. Supreme Court decision not to review the case]
June 7, 2007 Petition for Writ of Certiorari (May 16, 2007) supported by five amicus briefs:

Texas State Supreme Court

February 9, 2007 Amicus Brief Supporting Motion for Rehearing – Rodney A. Smolla
December 18, 2006 Motion for Rehearing – Texas Supreme Court
December 12, 2006 [Statement on the Texas Supreme Court decision not to review the case]
October 27, 2006 Reply to Response to Petition for Review
August 2, 2006 Petition for Review, supported by the following amicus briefs:

Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

February 16, 2006 Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing
January 16, 2006 [Statement on Appeals Court Decision]
September 15, 2004 Brief of Appellees

District Court of Harris County, Texas

March 9, 2004 Judge’s ruling denying Defendants’ second motion for full summary judgment
December 3, 2003 Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ “Second” Motion for Summary Judgment
November 19, 2003 Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment
June 13, 2003 Judge’s ruling denying defendants’ motion for full summary judgment and ordering discovery to proceed.
April 15, 2003 Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ Memorandum Brief in Support of Defendants’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment
March 10, 2003 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
August 12, 2002 Judge’s ruling denying defendants’ (John Ankerberg, Harvest House Publishers and John Weldon’s) motion for partial summary judgment in the Texas lawsuit
July 22, 2002 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
December 31, 2001 Lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas, by Living Stream Ministry, the Local Church, and individual local churches

Circuit Court of the State of Oregon

March 15, 2002 Judge’s ruling dismissing the Oregon lawsuit which was filed by John Ankerberg, Harvest House Publishers and John Weldon on December 14, 2001

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Rutherford Institute Amicus

Posted on by

Living Stream Ministry and The Local Church
Clarify Issues Related to Landmark Lawsuit Addressing Publisher’s Responsibility Beyond Right to Publish

Houston, Nov. 1, 2005 – The Rutherford Institute (TRI) recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of Harvest House Publishers, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon in their appeal, Harvest House et al vs. The Local Church, Living Stream Ministry and various local churches, of the trial court’s decision to deny their summary judgment motions. The appeal was heard in oral argument in the Texas State Court of Appeals on October 27, 2005.

Both publishers involved are members of the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association and should be governed by their standards, which reflect biblical principles. Regrettably, Harvest House has neglected those standards and continues to refuse to resolve the matter of including Living Stream Ministry and The Local Church in their publication of Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR) outside of the realm of litigation.

This case goes beyond the freedom of speech or the right to publish to the responsibility for what is published. The Rutherford Institute’s brief clarifies the limits to First Amendment rights on page two, stating that writers also must be “responsible for the abuse of that privilege.” This case is not about freedom, but abuse.

The Rutherford Amicus brief and related press release mischaracterize the nature of the conflict, the facts upon which it is based and the law that governs the issues involved. What is before the court is not a question about “general definitions” written in the normal course of publication. Neither does it have anything to do with theology or religious doctrine.

This litigation concerns a deliberate, systematic attempt by a Christian publisher and its authors to accuse Living Stream Ministry and the local churches of criminal behavior and abhorrent conduct – including rape, drug smuggling, child molestation, prostitution, murder and human sacrifice – without taking any responsibility for the falsity of those accusations.

Furthermore, despite repeated efforts by Living Stream Ministry and the local churches, Harvest House and their authors have steadfastly refused to meet as Christian brothers to resolve the conflict directly, according to the biblical mandate in Matthew 18. It was Harvest House, John Ankerberg and John Weldon who initiated the litigation, who brought this matter into the courts, and, at the same time, continued to republish the book.

The abuse of publication privilege in this case has been further demonstrated by the overwhelming evidence before the court. The authors testified under oath that readers could apply the “non-theological evils” of the ECNR Introduction and Appendix to the Local Church. Harvest House personnel confirmed that the language could be applied to the local churches. There is ample testimony that readers have related this criminal language to the local churches and Living Stream Ministry.

The trial court has already twice rejected the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, which argued that the attribution of crimes and abhorrent behavior could not be applied by a reasonable reader to the local churches. The language of the book itself is clearer than any lawyer’s argument–what is in the Introduction applies to the groups in the book. It is what the defendants intended and accomplished.

While it is clear that the publisher and authors had the local churches in mind when they wrote those horrendous charges, it is equally true that they have been completely unable to substantiate any of them. In fact they have admitted: “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 the cults in the Introduction generally apply to them.”

The question then is why are the local churches and Living Stream Ministry in their book? One would expect that the Rutherford Institute would rather encourage the authors and publishers to publish what they have already admitted-that the local churches and Living Stream Ministry do not belong in the “Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions.”

Romans 13 tells us that government is instituted under God’s sovereign ruling to protect society from lawlessness. The law concerning defamation is well defined and has layers of protection for the free expression of writers and publishers as well as provisions to deal with the deliberate misuse of publications to harm others. Christian publications are covered under that same law.

Though it appears the Rutherford brief means to suggest that Christians should be treated differently, certainly the standard among Christians should not be lower than those for other writers and publishers. If the law determines that one set of authors and publishers have deliberately done wrong, this will not chill the freedom of all Christian writers and publishers. A more likely result will be to encourage all Christian publishers to follow the higher standards our faith demands.

For background on this case, including copies of official court documents, go to http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/harvest-house-et-al/ [now /defense/encyclopedia-of-cults-and-new-religions/.

The entire Press Release is available in Adobe format here.