ROBERT@kontu.utu.fi (Robert W. Johnson) (10/23/90)
[I've combined two postings that seem to be on the same subject. As will become clear as you read this posting, the term "Local Churches" is apparently being used to characterize a specific group, which I suppose we would call a denomination. --clh] On whether the Local Churches are a cult or an orthodox Christian religious body. Writing a textbook on Cults is similar to writing biographies on famous mobsters. In such a book, one might write a section on the Mafia with biographies on Al Capone, Joe Dellinger (sp ?), Jimmy Hoffa, in separate chapters. In the Appendix, one might list the names of business associates of famous mobsters. Let's say that your friend Tim xxxx got mentioned in the Appendix. Even if the appendix states that business activities of Mr. Tim xxxx are legitimate and within the law, the mere fact that Mr. Tim xxxx's business activities were described in a book alongside that of Al Capone's businesses would cast much doubt about the integrity of Mr. Tim xxxx. Some honest businessmen of high repute might choose to avoid Mr. Tim xxxx and his business because they suspect that Mr. Tim xxxx's business is associated with the Mafia based on the book. The situation with the Local Church in Larsen's Book of Cults is similar. Larsen's evaluation of the Local Church was not bad compared to what was written about the real cults in the main chapters of his book. However, the mere fact that Witness Lee and the Local Churches were grouped together with the infamous and outrageous cults has caused many people to avoid dealing people who meet with the Local Church. A man's reputation is like a pillow. When the pillowcase is broken, the feathers inside are scattered by the wind. Once the feathers are scattered; they can never be collected and the pillow can never be put back together in a whole way. The same is true of Witness Lee. An Orange County Superior Court has judged Neal Duddy's and Jack Spark's books to be slanderous in 1981 but many people in Christianity are still ignorant of this fact. Larsen has retracted his section on the Local Church and he no longer includes the Local Church in any of his more recent versions. News about the courtroom victories and Larsen's retraction travel slowly. Once someone has planted the notion that the local churches are a cult; it takes years to clearup the damage. So the reality is that some Christians may continue to insist that the Local Churches are a cult for many years to come. If you ask the Living Stream Ministry about the accusations in those books, you would learn about the outcome of the lawsuits against Duddy and Sparks and about Larsen's retraction. Some people claim that the Local Churches are a cult. The following is addressed to those that make such claims. On Sunday morning, I meet with Christians who have taken the ground of "The Church in College Station". We have been bold to take this ground because of the writings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Watchman Nee founded a Church in Shanghai, a Church in Chungking, a Church in Nanking, and 200 other local churches across China from 1930 until his imprisonment in 1952. Without their writings, I would not be so bold as to stand for the ground of the church. Last December, I saw Brother Lee speak in Anaheim, California. So I meet among those people whom you have judged to be a "cult". The local churches do NOT teach that it is the only body of genuine believers. Such a teaching is divisive and contrary to God's Word revealed in the Bible. In Pentecostalism, there are genuine believers; in the Lutheran Church, there are genuine believers; in the Episcopal church, there are genuine believers; in the Baptist church, there are genuine believers; in the Methodist church, there are genuine believers; in Roman Catholicism, there are genuine believers. My dad is a genuine believer who meets in Roman Catholicism. I will have to leave out the names of other Christian groups and denominations in order to keep this message short. The principle revealed in the Scriptures is that God's salvation is unconditionally available to all men. Our eternal salvation does not depend on where we choose to go on Sunday morning. Someone who would make such an accusation about the local churches must not have been with the local churches. Many people have misunderstood the local church and have incorrectly attributed teachings to it. Like any Christian group, we do have beliefs that are special and unique among Christian groups. We have certain beliefs that some Christian groups have attacked as bad doctrine. There are items of generality and speciality of the Christian faith. There are specific items of the Christian faith that one must contend for and there are other items of the faith where we can be so general as to follow Romans 14:1: "Now him who is weak in faith receive, not with a view to passing judgement on reasonings." Applying the word "cult" in describing a Christian group implies that it has "satanic" and "heretical" elements. In Christianity, there are many bad and incorrect teachings but a bad teaching is not necessarily a heretical teaching. Many Christians groups have incorrect teachings but it would be wrong to judge them to be a "cult". Heresy attacks the person of Christ and the work of Christ. According to John Epistles, heretical teachings that attack the person of Christ and the work of Christ are evil works in the eyes of God. When you use the "cult" in describing the group of Christians whom I have chosen to meet with, then you are accusing me and my fellow brothers of working with Satan to destroy the person and work of Christ! You have accused me of not being a genuine Christian! I suggest that you do better research before you make such an accustion. The Institute for the Study of American Religion is an independent organization that you can use to verify Christian groups. Dr. J. Gordon Melton, a Methodist preacher, publishes the "Encyclopedia of American Religions". How does Dr. J. Gordon Melton classify religions? He has different categories of classification such as : The Baptist Family, The Methodist Family The Lutheran Family, The Pentecostal Family, The Episcopalian Family, The Independent Fundamentalist Family, The Family of Eastern Religions, The Magik Family. The Magik Family is a group of many different churches which use voodoo, withcraft, and satanism. The Family of Eastern Religions includes includes Hinduism and Buddism. There are also subfamilies and classes within families of religions. There are some groups that have such bizarre teachings that they fit into a special unclassfiable category. Where does Dr. J. Gordon Melton place the Local Churches? He places them in the category of The Independent Fundamentalist Family. Some of the many churches that he places in this category are the Plymouth Brethren and other Brethren Congregations, the Berean Bible Fellowship, the Truth for Today Bible Fellowship, the Bible Churches (Classics Expositor). In explaining how he made such classifications that distinguish the Independent Fundamentalist Family from other Families, he spends many pages explaining the teachings of John Nelson Darby and Scofield. Much of the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee stand on the teachings of the many Brethren writers such as John Nelson Darby, D.M. Panton, Scofield, and G.H. Pember. About 90% of the teaching of the local churches is the teaching of these Brethren writers. In the 19th century, the most prevailing preacher in the United States was D.L. Moody. Both Billy Graham and D.L. Moody have saved over 500,000 people. However, D.L. Moody saved his 500,000 before the advent of radio and television. D.L. Moody admitted that the writer whom he found to be of the greatest value was John Nelson Darby. Please check out the "American Encyclopedia of Religions" by J. Gordon Melton published in 1989. Its Library of Congress catalog number is BL 2525 M449. It is easily accessible here at the Texas A&M library and I would expect that other libraries around the nation should have a copy. If you unable to obtain this book or still have unanswered questions, you can write to: Dr. J. Gordon Melton Institute for the Study of American Religions P.O. Box 90709, Santa Barbara, CA 93190-0709 Yes, it is true that Lee does teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are really part of one Triune God in different manifestations. I have already submitted messages which contend this point. It is fair and reasonable for someone to disagree with these points if someone's conscience is bothering him. Also, the Christ that we worship is the same Christ who was crucified on the cross and resurrected on the third day like the rest of Christianity. What about Larsen's Book of Cults? The section of Bob Larsen's book on the local church stands on the work of other authors who are Jack Sparks and Neil Duddy. Bob Larsen only paraphrased material that was written in these books. At the time that Larsen published his Book of Cults, he had no idea that Duddy and Sparks books contained unfounded lies and slander. The Living Stream Ministry initiated a lawsuit against Sparks and Duddy in 1979. These authors purposedly misrepresented Brother Lee's teachings. When they quoted Brother Lee, they often removed critical words in critical places. They also added prepositions and conjunctions in critical places so that the implied message in their book was totally different from the message that Brother Lee intended to impart. Much worse, they falsely attributed statements to Brother Lee that he never made and attributed beliefs to Brother Lee that are completely opposed to Brother Lee's teachings. It is also obvious that these authors had malicious intent when they fabricated their books. Slander cases are difficult to prove in court for several reasons. It is not enough to prove that someone is factually wrong. According to the Federal laws regarding slander and libel, one must prove that the defendent had malicious intent. For example, I can prove that Mr. X's accusations are wrong but I can never prove in court that Mr. X has malicious intents. It is likely that Mr. X's intentions are very good; he only wants to expose what he considers to be the truth. As long as Mr. X can show that he honestly does not know that his information about the Local Church is false, then any court in the land would have to find Mr. X innocent of any charges of slander and libel. The lawyers for the Living Stream Ministry not only had to prove that Duddy and Sparks were factually wrong but they also had to prove that they had malicious intents to do harm to Brother Lee. The case ended up as a victory for Brother Lee in the courtroom. One of the book publishers, Thomas Nelson, Inc. was forced to publish an official note of apology to Brother Lee and the Living Stream Ministry. This note of apology was published in the Los Angeles Times, the Dallas Morning News, the Wall Street Journal, and many other major newspapers. In these newspapers, Thomas Nelson Publishing Inc. formally apologized for having wrongfully published slanderous material against Brother Lee. In addition, the Living Stream Ministry won a $11.9 million judgement. Bob Larsen published a retraction and an apology concerning his Book of Cults. Larsens' Book of Cults stands on work that a judge in an Orange County Superior Court had judged to be libelous. So if you contact Bob Larsen, he will tell you the truth regarding this lawsuit. After this lawsuit was settled around 1983, some individuals have still continued to distribute the slanderous material of Duddy and Sparks with a statement saying that "The author has retracted this message". The reason that the author retracted his message was that an Orange County Superior Court, along with the publishing and insurance companies had forced the author to do so. I recommend Dr. J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions for several reasons. The third edition is recent; it was published in 1989. When researching religious groups and cults, it is important to have the most up-to-date information possible. Dr. Melton is a Methodist minister with a doctorate in divinity; he is independent of the local churches. Also, he took part in the lawsuit against Sparks and Duddy and was placed on the witness stand for examination by lawyers on both sides. He wrote a book that exposed and attacked Neil Duddy's work. His entry on the Local Church in the Encyclopedia of American Religions briefly mentions and explains the lawsuit. ----- Robert W. Johnson Computer center, The University of Turku, Turku Finland robert@kontu.utu.fi (InterNet) robert@firien.bitnet (BITNET) The preceeding is my opinion and may not express the opinion of my employer and furthermore has nothing to do with my employment.
max@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Max Southall) (10/25/90)
I think it worth noting that there is a scriptural prohibition against taking other Christians to court, as the Nee/Lee groups have been aggressively doing. A litigious attitude hardly seems indicative of a spirit of love, forgiveness, and yes, even turning the other cheek. I understand that even the mention of this group in a critical light brings immediate threat of well-heeled multimillion-dollar lawsuits. This has resulted in an effective prior restraint on free speech and a free press, something that in this country smacks of totalitarianism. It is regrettable that a group whose leaders have suffered under totalitarianism, apparently, have not seen the value of free discussion in an open society. Christian publishers of cult apologetics and doctrinal examinations are not entities with deep pockets, and the threat of long and expensive lawsuits effectively silences them.
ldh@bessel.eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) (10/28/90)
I am not sure, but I believe that the Nee/Lee people went
to the publishers and the writers in attempt to get them
to withdraw their statements. The writers refused, even
though they were incorrect. I agree that we should always
act in a loving manner, and Christ teaches us to turn the
other cheek, not just with other christians, but with all
men. However, there was no violence involved in them asking
the Law to intervene on their behalf, I believe most people
would do the same if they had been nationally slandered. The
Lord also champions the truth.
In monetary gain on the part of Nee/Lee I would find questionable.
I do not, by the way, agree with the doctrine of Brother Lee and
associates.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody
else lays claim to them.
================================================================
Lonnie D. Harvel | ldh@bessel.eedsp.gatech.edu
School of Electrical Engineering |
Georgia Institue of Technology | "quisque suis patimur manis"
Atlanta, GA 30332-0250 | Virgilgilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (10/29/90)
I have had contact with, and to some degree been involved with, a Local Church group for the last 4 or 5 years. The following is my view of it, and in no way reflects the opinion of anyone else (including my employer). First, a little history. The Local Church came from an indigenous Chinese Christian movement called the Little Flock (this was the name of the hymnal they used). One of the leaders of this group was named Watchman Nee; several people have mentioned him favorably. I think he had some good points but was theologically shaky. By the time of the communist takeover of China, he was the leading figure in the group. This group was inspired by the teachings of the Plymouth Brethren; it emphasized the oneness of all believers. It was strongly anti-denominational. It also emphasized local autonomy for a given body. It downplayed professional clergy, though it did have ``full-time workers.'' When the communists took over, Watchman Nee asked several people, including Witness Lee, who had become one of the more prominent co-workers, to go to Taiwan to continue the work there. The Little Flock in China was one of the last Christian groups to fall under persecution because it was indigenous and was not dominated by foreign missionaries. It seems that it has, to some degree, served as an element of the ``house-church'' movement in China that was so unexpectedly strong. There is a book called AGAINST THE TIDE about Watchman Nee that discusses much of this, including Watchman Nee's relationship to the Plymouth Brethren. As time went on, Witness Lee (in Taiwan) became the head of things there. He downgraded others of similar stature and attempted (though unsuccessfully) to control the publication of Watchman Nee's books and talks. Eventually he moved to the U.S. where the Local Church movement started. The term ``Local Church'' comes from the idea that Christians should be united in every matter; the only thing that divides Christians is where they live. Thus, for each ``locality'' there should only be one body of Christians. Watchman Nee, in the collection of talks called ``The Normal Christian Church Life'', claims that this is the pattern the New Testament followed. The leaders of a particular body were supposed to be over that body alone (``local administration''). In fact, they claimed that there was NO CHURCH in an area unless it stood upon this ``ground''. Any group that called itself a church but was not organized in accordance with these principles (e.g. denominations) was not really a church; thus when Local Church people started a church in a given region they would call themselves ``The Church in San Jose'' or whatever. My own experience with the Local Church brought out four tendencies that concern me. They are 1) Strong authoritarianism 2) Unusual, dubious doctrines 3) Homogeneity of practice 4) Downgrading of other groups 1) In the Local Church meetings I went to, I often heard references to `Brother Lee'. I found out that this Brother Lee was Witness Lee; he is virtually the only source of teaching and doctrine. He and some others made a translation of the New Testament called the ``Recovery Version'' (see below for a description of the Lord's Recovery). I can't stand this translation; it is even more literal-minded than the NASB. In many places it looks like a word-for-word literal translation of the Greek. Witness Lee has copiously annotated this version. It looks to me like many people treat these notes as authoritative; they are studied and ``pray-read'' along with the Bible itself. In one meeting I expressed disagreement with something the notes said, and 4 people promptly corrected me. Witness Lee gives ``trainings'' or seminars at major holidays (the Local Church takes the view that these holidays should be avoided as pagan-inspired). They are also distributed by videotape. He also puts out something called ``Truth Lessons''; these were studied at the home meetings; in our case, they were studied in preference to the scriptures themselves. That is, the home meetings started out being Bible studies, then someone announced that from now on we would study the truth lessons instead. Witness Lee passes judgement on the leadership of each body. I think he selects the leaders in some cases. He also sets policy; at one point he instituted a ``door-knocking'' campaign that many people felt uncomfortable with but participated in anyway. There is a strong emphasis on ``the Spirit'' as opposed to ``the mind'' -- for example, you can be ``in the mind'' instead of ``in the Spirit'', and this is a bad thing. This emphasis is used to suppress dissent. People who disagree are in the mind. A strong emphasis on unity also has the same effect -- people who disagree are breaking the unity, and this is considered to be spiritual adultery. There is a strong strain of spiritual intimidation that goes on. In one talk I heard Witness Lee say that people who ``love the Lord with their hearts'' ask questions and become troublemakers in the church. He said ``We don't want people to love the Lord in this way.'' Instead people should love the Lord ``in immortality'' (c.f. the end of Ephesians). This was said in the context of growing dissent in the church he was talking in. One other point -- some leaders in the Local Church have told me that Witness Lee is an apostle. They said that what this means is that he is at the forefront of what the Lord is doing today, as Paul was in his day. 2) When I first went to a Local Church meeting, I heard some strange terms. For example, they talked about the ``processed triune God.'' (This is the one that sticks in my mind most strongly). I found out that this meant something like the idea that God had to be put into a form where he was accessible to us (as, for example, food). The incarnation, crucifiction and resurrection were the process that God went through to have this happen. Another term they used that I had never heard before was ``mingled'', as in ``God mingled with humanity.'' They also talked about the ``all-inclusive Christ'', a phrase that has led some to charge them with pantheistic tendencies. There were several other strange terms that caught my attention in the beginning. In many cases, these terms could be interpreted in relatively orthodox ways. They just seemed to be put strangely. But in some cases, there were things that seemed to me to be real difficulties. For example, the Local Church believed that Christ became THE Spirit (taking off from a verse in 1 Corinthians that said that the last Adam became A life-giving spirit). This is modalistic. In another instance, they talked about the self in terms that were so extreme that, again, some have accused them of pantheism -- the self gets obliterated in union with God. Another strange doctrine was the idea that by ``calling on the name of the Lord'' -- literally saying ``Oh, Lord Jesus'' over and over again -- one could be saved, and would gain spiritual nourishment. In fact, this calling on the name of the Lord, along with pray-reading (repeating sections of the Bible -- or other approved material -- over and over) were the means for spiritually eating and drinking Christ. As I have already mentioned, there was a strong tendency to distinguish ``the Spirit'' against nature, to the point of opposition. To the Local Church people, the Spirit came to dwell in us (orthodox enough) and gave us access to a sort of autonomous goodness. One person, for example, said ``My spirit can't cheat me.'' The tendency in practice seemed to me to be to equate the spirit with one's feelings. 3) One of the things that surprised me was that all the local churches seemed pretty much the same. I went to three different local churches -- in Hayward, San Jose, and Berkeley. At each of them, the meetings were much the same. There was a lot of noise -- people saying Amen and ``Oh, Lord Jesus.'' In each one, people would repeat ``Amen'' in unison after each phrase of what someone said or prayed. There would be pray reading of the scriptures or hymns. And invariably there would be references to Witness Lee's stuff. This surprised and disappointed me, since I had gotten involved with this group because I wanted a freer environment than the denominational environment I had been in. I felt that there was more room for participation, but the participation was strongly constrained in form and content. 4) I've already mentioned that, organizationally, the Local Church doesn't recognize other bodies as representing the Church. In the original Little Flock movement, Watchman Nee refused to cooperate with other organizations to ``avoid confusion''. While, in light of the competitive nature of the missionary practices of that day, this seems understandable to me, the exclusionistic tendency has been perpetuated and strengthened in the doctrines about locality. The Local Church refers to itself as ``The Lord's recovery of his church.'' This is taken from an interpretation of the letters to the Churches in the book of Revelation (see Watchman Nee's book, THE ORTHODOXY OF THE CHURCH). The idea is that the churches to whom Christ spoke in Rev. 2-3 represent the Church through history. Thyatira, for example, represents the Roman Catholic Church; Sardis represents the Protestant Church, and Philadelphia represents the Lord's Recovery growing out of Darby's brethren movement. The point is that there is a theological teaching that says that the Local Church is the only true representation of the Lord's will for his Church today. Other denominations are referred to (in some hymns, for example) as Babylon. While I have some sympathy for this point of view, I feel that the Local Church does no better. It doesn't really even live up to its name because of the strong control Witness Lee has over the local groups. In the last two years there has been a major split in the Local Church. Several prominent people, including John Ingalls (one of the co-translators of the Recovery Version New Testament) have disassociated themselves from Witness Lee and resigned their elderships. These are people from the ``flagship'' church in Anaheim, CA. In the San Jose church I went to, the ``leading elder'', a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, quit and left. The Local Churches usually consist of Caucasians and Chinese; in the San Jose church many of the Chinese left and started meeting somewhere else; many of the Caucasians just left and went their own ways. I currently meet with the Chinese group that left the San Jose church. The split was ignited by certain moral problems that Witness Lee's son was having and Witness Lee's insistence, in spite of this, to have his son play a leading role in his ministry. The final straw seemed to be when Witness Lee's son came to take the Lord's supper; many people were outraged that he would have the gall to do this. This problem is a long-standing one; in fact there was an earlier split over this same issue about ten years ago. The current situation seems to have been more significant since several of the churches around here were strongly affected; at least one broke completely with Witness Lee. For me, the whole experience was and to some extent remains very frustrating and disappointing. I had visions of real Christian unity and freedom; instead I found spiritual pride and authoritarianism. Even in the group I am in, there are still strong patterns left over from the Local Church -- the emphasis on the spirit as a distinct component of our being, the refusal to consider other theological views, naive exegesis, the tendency to do the same old things at the meetings, and so on. One of the hardest things for me was the discovery that when my group split off, the people who assumed leadership were basically reactionary and wanted to go back to a ``golden age'' when everything was pure and simple. To me their idea of pure and simple was biased and coercive. The thing that encourages me is that several people I've talked with are starting to explicitly talk about the need to ``open up'' to other points of view, and to realize that some of the practices they do are alienating people. -- Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com Are Saturday morning cartoons proof that adults hate kids? Answer: Yes. (From "Life in Hell")