Quote:
Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast
...This book presented the results of SCP's investigations into the theology and practices of the Local Church. The SCP findings alleged that the Local Church was promulgating heresy. The dispute between the Local Church and the SCP escalated into a lawsuit for defamation that was filed in Oakland, California in December 1980 and known as Lee v. Duddy...
Had issues concerning differences in understanding of the truths of the Bible been the extent of the accusations made by those opposing the local churches, this Web site would be limited to answering those issues. However, writers from one particular source, the Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF), a group formed in Berkeley to reach radical youth on the 1970s college campus, went further to falsely accuse Witness Lee and the local churches of cultic practices including financial improprieties, deceitful recruiting, autocratic control of members, etc. Their accusations formed the basis of two books: - The Mindbenders by Jack Sparks; and
- The God-Men by Neil Duddy and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP).
|
“Promulgating heresy”
“cultic practices”
“financial improprieties”
“deceitful recruiting”
“autocratic control”
They are able to publish these accusations in a book for any and all to read, certainly derogatory. How exactly was the LRC supposed to defend itself if they are not permitted to go to court? (I am referring to your extensive quote concerning the prohibition to lawsuits).
Also, please note, I am referring to the situation in 1978 and 1979. I was on campus at the time in Houston. I was not aware of any "financial improprieties" in Houston, nor did we engage in "deceitful recruiting" on the campus I was on. Everyone, both student and faculty, were well aware of the five or so brothers from the LRC and who they were. Also there was no control exercised on the campus work by the church, we were given full autonomy. Also I do not agree that we were involved in "cultic practices" as understood in the Jim Jones post era.
At this point I was completely unaware of the teaching of MOTA, if anything WN was regarded highly as a man of God who was a martyr, and WL was considered a close coworker of his. The teaching of the ground was borderline at that moment in history, if you want to argue that it was the basis for a sect I will cede that, but it has a lot to do with which locality and who was applying the teaching. We did not apply it in a divisive way on our campus, which is why I met with Campus Crusade and knew all the brothers on inter varsity. However, from what I gather we were the exception to the rule.
My point is not that these things are not valid points concerning Witness Lee and even concerning the LRC. My point is that from my very narrow vantage point, perhaps not the most significant vantage point, but still a valid stance, this book damaged our work in a daily way without being an accurate depiction of us. We discussed what to do about this for over 6 months before they said that they had decided to go on with the lawsuit and we agreed because it seemed like a reasonable response.
Just so we are clear, this book was used all the time on our campus to speak negatively about our work. The book didn't describe us fairly, as far as I was concerned. I could not deny the damage when this was discussed in the church. We did not push for any action to be taken, our response was that most people on campus were not talking to Campus Crusade or Inter Varsity anyway. We figured we had plenty of people to preach to that would never be influenced by them. Still, the discussions went on for six months, some were very vehement, and then they told us WL had reluctantly decided at the insistence of James Barber to sue. We had not pushed for this, but we understood the angst, and understood why this action was taken.