The Lawsuit Over ECNR Is Not About Theology

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

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

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.)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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?

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

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.

Prelude to Conflict

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?

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

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

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—Miscellaneous Procedural and Evidentiary Court Rulings

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

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

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.