The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Good morning saints:

I recently purchased this book, and at the time I am posting this, I have not yet read far into it. That said, I wanted to share it. This book, or more specifically the lawsuit launched against it by Witness Lee, is cited within the Christian community as more reason than any other to damn LSM. For this reason, I think we owe it to SCP to hear what they had to say - indeed to hear what Witness Lee and LSM didn't want any of us to hear. Because it was undoubtedly the tithes and offerings of Local Church members that were used to silence SCP's voice - making those of us who were a part of a Local Church in those days, party to that sin.

What God says: "When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!"

The Defendant: The Spiritual Counterfeits Project (also known as SCP) is a Christian evangelical parachurch organisation located in Berkeley, California. Since its inception in the early 1970s it has been involved in the fields of Christian apologetics and the Christian countercult movement. Its current president is Tal Brooke. In its role as a think-tank SCP has sought to publish evangelically-based analyses of new religious movements, New Age and alternative spiritualities in light of broad cultural trends.

The origins of the SCP are grounded in the Christian counterculture movement (also known as the Jesus Movement or Jesus People) of the late 1960s. As a parachurch organization, much like the Gideons, it is made up entirely of Christian lay-people, and not of clergy. In 1968 some staff members of Campus Crusade for Christ conceived of the need to contextualize the Christian message for radical and revolutionary university students. The key figures were Jack Sparks and his wife, Patrick and Karry Matrisciana (also known as Caryl Matrisciana), Fred and Jan Dyson, Weldon and Barbara Hartenburg. In April 1969 Sparks and his colleagues commenced their ministry at the University of California, Berkeley.

The Case: In 1977 InterVarsity Press released an 80 page booklet by the SCP called The God-Men: Witness Lee and the Local Church. It was updated and released as a full-length book in 1981 as The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee and the Local Church. This is the book from which I will be reading. 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.

Over a period of four and a half years the pre-trial preparations and depositions, involved expenditure that brought SCP into legal debt with their defense lawyers. The defamation trial was scheduled to commence on March 4, 1985. According to Bill Squires "the lawfirm representing us withdrew from the case" and so the decision was taken to file for a reorganizational bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court. Squires states, "that move imposed an immediate stay on the plaintiffs' action against us, thus ending the financial drain of litigation. On that day, SCP, while continuing its larger ministry, officially dropped out of the lawsuit."

The Charge against SCP: Defamation.
California Elements of Defamation

Defamation, which consists of both libel and slander, is defined by case law and statute in California. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 44, 45a, and 46.

The elements of a defamation claim are:

1. publication of a statement of fact
2. that is false,*
3. unprivileged,
4. has a natural tendency to injure or which causes "special damage," and
5. the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.

Publication, which may be written or oral, means communication to a third person who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made. Publication need not be to the “public” at large; communication to a single individual other than the plaintiff is sufficient. Republishing a defamatory statement made by another is generally not protected.

Statement from The Prosecution (taken from DCP's website): "Sadly, there were (in the late 70's) a few Christians who for various reasons opposed this speaking (that all believers should be living and functioning members of the Body of Christ). Some held a concept of the Christian faith that was strictly objective and doctrinal. Uncomfortable with the entirely Biblical stress on the need to experience the indwelling Christ, they labeled it as an un-Christian and even as Eastern mystical teaching. Others were motivated by a desire to maintain some level of prominence in Christian work. They felt threatened by a teaching that opposed the hierarchical clergy-laity system of today’s Christianity, encouraged all of God’s people to learn to speak for and serve God as priests, and presented a simple way for believers to meet together in the oneness of the Body of Christ...


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).

Many of the members of the local churches made phone calls and wrote letters to the authors and publishers protesting the falsity of these books’ serious allegations. The authors and publishers ignored these appeals from the Christians meeting in the local churches. In addition, Witness Lee and the local churches also published booklets and articles to refute these opposers’ misrepresentations and accusations. After unsuccessfully pleading with the authors and publishers of these books to retract their libelous content, second, more damaging editions of both books, as well as a third book entitled The New Cults, were published.

Because no legal action was taken by the local churches to protest the first editions of these books, a second generation of books and articles were published by others based almost entirely on the misinformation in the initial few books. After suffering defamation for almost a decade, and having exhausted all less aggressive means of reconciliation, Witness Lee and the local churches followed the Apostle Paul’s precedent of appealing to Caesar, that is, the legal system, for protection from his religious opponents (Acts 25:11)."


With this history in mind, let us dive in to this book which LSM and Witness Lee label as defamatory, and - as a jury now made up of peers, let us hear the case that never made it before a judge. Let us arrive together at a verdict.

References
http://watch.pair.com/scp-duddy.html
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org...ons/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheLocalChurch
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...defamation-law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritu...rfeits_Project
http://www.scp-inc.org/

[ZNPaaneah]

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.

[OBW]

They are able to publish these accusations in a book for any and all to read, certainly defamatory. How exactly was the LRC supposed to defend itself if they are not permitted to go to court?

I removed the personal reference from the quote for a reason. I am not challenging anyone. I am just speaking to the statement made.

- - - -

Not so certainly defamatory.

Counter to their claim of being wholesome and mainstream. Ugly facts to get out to the public. But defamatory only if proved to be false.

And on what basis were they not permitted to go to court?

If you say "Neil Duddy" then that would be false. Neil Duddy did not deny them the right to go to court.

If you say "scripture" then it would seem that it really did not stop them, so they were still permitted.

Who didn't permit them to go to court?

Since there is a facade of Christianity surrounding this whole fiasco, isn't there some kind of requirement to attempt to reconcile prior to declaring the other party a "heathen" and therefore be free to sue them? If so, then when did the LRC try to reconcile or discuss? What gave them the freedom within their own version of the scriptural mandates to sue?

The problem that surfaces here, and in virtually every case to come after, is that there was opportunity to discuss. But they (the LRC) refused. They charged the other side with refusing to discuss, but it is clear from the actual evidence that it is Lee, the LSM, and the LRC that refused to discuss. They simply sent ultimatums and initiated lawsuits. They want to force the problem to go away. There was never to be any discussion. Any negative statements would either go away or be sued.

Funny thing is that there has only been one major trial that went through to completion. And they lost. All the others in which they claim victory were the result of the opponent not having the depth of financial resources to withstand the continuing onslaught of discovery and delay such that they did not have the wherewithal to actually appear in court once the time for trial arrived. Duddy's judgment was essentially stipulated by the trial judge without consideration. There was no consideration of the correctness of the statements made in the book or the counter-charges made by the LRC. And the publisher of the Mindbenders simply agreed to a settlement to avoid bankruptcy. It is a technical victory — they had to say that the book was defamatory. But there was no actual weighing of the facts to determine whether that was the correct result. They gave up to survive. With an endless source of funds, they could very likely have won. Same for Duddy.

Only Harvest House got to a conclusion. And the LRC lost.

The statements in the Encyclopedia of [cults] were not of the nature as were in the God Men and Mindbenders. But those victories were through suffocation of the opponent rather than consideration of the merits.

BTW. I recall that there was some concern that at least one of the accounts in [the God Men, I think] was later refuted by the person who supposedly gave the account. If someone knows what I am talking about, can they provide the specifics. I have wondered whether it is possible that after the first publication of the book, the LRC carefully went out to get that person firmly back into the fold so they would deny the story.

It has already happened at least one time more recently when someone who made an account to someone who posts here was later brought back into the LRC fold and then asked to refute the account that was given so many years earlier. Since the telling of the account was out on the internet, they needed to try to squash it. Sounds a lot like the way that account surrounding the God Men went.

And, with reference to another discussion going on here, how so many recent accounts may not clear-up situations concerning Nee, Lee, an excommunication, and a trial. Memories get foggy. People want to gain favor with certain people. Or want to punish other people.

Last, several years ago, I read one of the books. I think it was the God-Men. After 14 years in the LRC, and about 18 years out (at that time), I think it is fair to say that I had a basis for assessment and I concluded that it was fairly accurate in its comments on LRC doctrines and teachings. Just like the recent discussions on the use of the term "cult" its applicability is in the eye of the beholder. And heresy is likewise in the eye of the beholder. And those are not topics on which courts can opine.

The accounts concerning particular actions were not readily confirm-able. But they were not outside of the kind of things that I know have been done. There have been two very real and factual accounts on these forums of the LRC separating families where there was nothing abusive, just lack of desire to be in the LRC, and even hiding the "insiders" from the ones excluded. One account was from a brother who posted on the Bereans for several years. The other from a sister who was a junior-high student when she and her mother and sister were whisked away to another city. Add to that the verbal assault on Jane Anderson and the stories in the God-Men seem quite reasonable. There is autocratic control. And cultic practices.

Think about Daystar and you have financial shenanigans.

And while I have no problem with the idea of not necessarily telling everybody everything from the outset, the idea that they continually deny the link between Christians on Campus and the LRC when asked about it is deceitful recruiting practices.

What is left?

Where is the defamation?

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not so certainly defamatory.

Counter to their claim of being wholesome and mainstream. Ugly facts to get out to the public. But defamatory only if proved to be false."

Hello Mike!

Well said, but let me add something to this, although I am not a lawyer.

My understanding is, for something to be considered defamatory, it must not ONLY be proven to be false, it must ALSO be proven (by the Prosecution) that the Defandant was negligent in publishing something as "fact". In other words, an honest misunderstanding will not make a libel or slander charge stick.

Think about this in terms of Journalism. Have you read a retraction in a newspaper before? Sometimes, journalists don't get their facts straight. Could they be sued for Defamation? Yes, *IF* it can be proven that they used only a single source to get the information they published, or if it can be proven that they had an agenda in printing what they did. For this reason, Journalists are instructed to use more than one source when printing an article. Newspapers stand to lose a lot if they print something false that results in financial damages. Was SCP negligent in what they printed? So far, it wouldn't seem so. They spent four years conducting research, and they interviewed current members, ex-members, and people who have had contact with the LC. They even tried to interview Witness Lee himself, and invited him to bring along two witnesses of his own. This they were refused (and they apparently have evidence of that), but they did make the effort.

On this basis, whatever claims are made in this book, I am not certain that we can say they were "negligently" made.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Good morning saints,

Before we continue, I want to stop to go over the points some of you have raised. I want us to address the issues raised by both parties here in a thorough and balanced way, with respect for both parties.

If what we are doing here is giving this book the trial it was due but never received, then we need to take into account all the facts and stand not only for the defense (if that is the way we might naturally be inclined), but also for the prosecution.

Given that, let's look at ZNP's statement below:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

“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).

First brother, I understand these events transpired while you were a part of the LC. Yes, you offer a first hand view that I don't have - but you must also confess, that being a part of the "body" of the prosecution at the time, your view is biased. Here your bias is exposed (and I say this gently, not in an accusing tone):

You have copied the allegations made by the prosecution: Promulgating heresy, cultic practices, financial improprieties, deceitful recruiting, and autocratic control - and reposted them as though they have already been proven (established) to be true. However, we have not yet (atleast) found any such allegations made within the book in question. Until the evidence (if it exists) is uncovered, we cannot arrive at the conclusion that LSM's allegations are true.

Also: When you say "I am referring to your extensive quote concerning the prohibition to lawsuits" - are you referring to my quote of 1st Corinthians 6:1-8? If your complaint is with that quote, then you will have to bring it to the Lord. The quote from 1st Corinthians does not stand alone in Scripture. The Lord on numerous occasions instructs us on how we are to deal with one another as brothers and sisters.

Matthew 18:15-17 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

Here, the Lord's direct instruction to His disciples is to deal with a brother who sins against you (which is what Witness Lee and LSM have alleged) between you and him alone. SCP has already supplied evidence that they attempted to have such one-on-one discussions, but were repeatedly rebuffed by the Local Church of Anaheim and by Witness Lee in particular.

1st Peter 2:18-25 "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. ..."

Again, LSM alleges that SCP was behaving in an unjust way - but even if this is true, Scripture is clear: As "true" believers, LSM and Witness Lee are called to "suffer unjustly" - for "that is a gracious thing in the sight of God." In this case, one can argue that Lee refused to take up the cross, and suffer as Christ suffered - but rather sued for what he believed was his.

Again: Matthew 5:38-42 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."

LSM and Witness Lee allege, essentially, that SCP at the least behaved in an evil way towards them. Weren't the words of our Lord Jesus Christ clear? Turn the other cheek. This trial, this propensity to litigate, has been used by the wide Christian community to condemn LSM. This one event, more than any other, has caused PERMANENT damage to LSM's testimony within the Christian community. That is precisely because, I must assert, that Scripture couldn't POSSIBLY be more clear: Suing a brother in Christ is WRONG. It is a SIN. The only way to arrive at another conclusion is to disregard or dismiss the clear Word of God and to say it lacks authority. I don't believe you would say that ZNP - from what you've written elsewhere, I really don't - I think what I've heard from you here is only reactionary; a nerve has been hit, because you were a part of the LC in the time this happened. Am I right? Do we not agree that all of Scripture is God Breathed, and that no prophet wrote of his own volition, but as carried along by the Spirit of God?

Regardless: The point of this "trial" is not what God has to say on the matter. If it were, I think we would have to declare the defense the victor even before the trial began, because God would refuse to hear the case. The point of this trial is to give LSM what they say they wanted: A chance to appeal to Caesar. "Caesar" was an unbeliever - so the evidence that LSM brings forth as the prosecution (as well as the defense offered by SCP) must buttress arguments using secular law. That is not to say that Scripture cannot be used throughout the course of this trial - because in this case, I believe BOTH the Prosecution and the Defense recognize the Authority of the Word of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

First brother, I understand these events transpired while you were a part of the LC. Yes, you offer a first hand view that I don't have - but you must also confess, that being a part of the "body" of the prosecution at the time, your view is biased. Here your bias is exposed (and I say this gently, not in an accusing tone):

Biased in what way?

I thought I explained very clearly in the post you referenced. I had first hand experience of gospel contacts being poisoned by people using this book. So I knew that when I heard others complain that this book was damaging the work it was a valid complaint. On the other hand we felt it was not a major issue for us at the school I was at because we felt Campus Crusade and Intervarsity had minimal impact and very little respect in the school. We were speaking to ten or twenty new gospel contacts per week and we felt they could only poison a handful of contacts per year. We certainly didn't ever think that a lawsuit was the answer. This was decided by the Texas elders, specifically James Barber was the one who insisted on this approach.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Biased in what way?

I thought I explained very clearly in the post you referenced. I had first hand experience of gospel contacts being poisoned by people using this book. So I knew that when I heard others complain that this book was damaging the work it was a valid complaint... We were speaking to ten or twenty new gospel contacts per week and we felt they could only poison a handful of contacts per year.

Respectfully brother, your use of the word "poison" is a demonstration of the bias you hold. You say "poison", others might say "warn" or even "save". "Poison" implies that someone has been deliberately given something that will make them ill or kill them - whereas a warning given means someone is told to be wary in handling/dealing with something. That this book effected the ability of the Local Church to recruit new members, I have no doubt. What needs to be determined, however, was whether or not that warning was validly given, or had a right to be given.

Doesn't your presence here, and your long posts on Witness Lee being a False Teacher do the very thing that SCP was accused of doing?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Respectfully brother, your use of the word "poison" is a demonstration of the bias you hold. You say "poison", others might say "warn" or even "save". "Poison" implies that someone has been deliberately given something that will make them ill or kill them - whereas a warning given means someone is told to be wary in handling/dealing with something. That this book effected the ability of the Local Church to recruit new members, I have no doubt. What needs to be determined, however, was whether or not that warning was validly given, or had a right to be given.

Doesn't your presence here, and your long posts on Witness Lee being a False Teacher do the very thing that SCP was accused of doing?

I am not denying that I have a particular viewpoint, and if you wish you can call that a bias. My point is that there was no reason to be vague in that bias, I said specifically what it was.

I use the word poison because a person that we preached the gospel to and who prayed with us one day would not talk to us other than to say this group had talked to them the next day. That is not "warned". Also, if they had then shepherded this newly saved one I would feel less negative about it, but they felt their work was done by preventing us from shepherding this one. We preached the gospel to unbelievers, not people meeting with intervarsity or campus crusade, they talked to them, and now this person doesn't want to talk to any Christian. Yes, that in my understanding is poisoned.

SCP were prophets for hire. They were paid by a Christian group to come in and curse the LRC. What they did was similar to what Balaam did. Since Balaam is the poster boy for false teachers I have used him as an example of what Witness Lee did. So no, what SCP did is what Witness Lee did, which is what Balaam did, not what I have done. I do not see any similarity to my posts on this forum.

I believe they both used pernicious ways. I have gone into great depth of why I think WL used pernicious ways, I also have first hand experiences concerning this book but see little reason to share them here.

They both used fabricated words.

They both were motivated by covetousness.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

You have copied the allegations made by the prosecution: Promulgating heresy, cultic practices, financial improprieties, deceitful recruiting, and autocratic control - and reposted them as though they have already been proven (established) to be true. However, we have not yet (atleast) found any such allegations made within the book in question. Until the evidence (if it exists) is uncovered, we cannot arrive at the conclusion that LSM's allegations are true.

Of course I can. I had first hand experience of people pulling aside gospel contacts on campus and using this book to poison them. Talking with contacts before and after these meetings is a very strong basis to make these claims. I had people relay first hand accounts of what took place in these talks.

If you want a fair and unbiased account, then you have to include the way this book was used, who published it, and why.

My personal opinion was that the lawsuit was a very big mistake. But the idea that this book didn't have an agenda or that it wasn't published out of jealousy is ridiculous. We had 5 brothers, intervarsity and campus crusade might have had 30 brothers and sisters. Our gospel was prevailing, reaching every corner of the campus. Their gospel was anemic and sickly, primarily composed of trying to dissuade our gospel contacts from listening or meeting with us.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Because a charge of Defamation, by definition, is the promulgating of false charges - we need to hear for ourselves what charges are being levelled against Witness Lee and the Local Church in this book. With that in mind, allow me to provide a summary and excerpts from the various passages.

A Note on the Title:

Okay, we were Local Church members. We've heard the charges about the doctrines Lee's preached before, and probably bristled at them (at least, when we were ourselves a part of that fellowship). Nevertheless, the Title of this book was take from a quote by Witness Lee. If you've seen the cover in another post of mine, then you couldn't read the quote there as the print was too fine. The quote on the cover is: "To be a Christian simple means to be mingled with God, to be a God-man." - Witness Lee.

Now, that title and that quote ARE sensational (they grab a Christian's attention, that is for certain) - but the title itself certainly isn't defamatory. The quote is lifted from Lee's own published writings.

From the Preface: Why the Book?
"Local Church history is one of stormy relations with Christian churches critical of it's doctrinal posture, its internal social relationships, and its conduct in society. This book attempts to document Local Church doctrine and conduct. Our analysis and critique is based on many published writings of the Local Church's founder, Witness Lee, and on personal reports collated by the authors regarding Local Church interactions with communities nationwide. The authors have personally contacted Local Church (hereafter referred to as "LC" - to save my typing fingers) leaders and members for the purpose of collecting firsthand information. Additional information has come from correspondence with persons who have been members of the LC, who have had encounters with LC members or who have conducted interviews with LC participants." - pg 8.

Note: "We have earnestly sought a personal audience with Witness Lee in order that our understanding of his teachings and practices might once and for all be substantiated or corrected (DCP claims this was never done). Before the initial printing of The God-Men by (SCP), a certified letter requesting an appointment with Lee and with two LC representatives was sent to Lee's home. The receipt was returned to our office, bearing Mrs. Lee's signature, but with no reply. After a reasonable wait, we sent Lee a telegram, again urging him to respond to our invitation to dialogue. We received no response."

"...Researcher Neil Duddy went twice to Local Church headquarters in Anaheim, California, and spoke with Lee's two chief apologists. At the close of the second session... Duddy was told that Lee, for reasons of principle, does not respond to criticisms or questions from outsiders. LC executive Ronald R. Kangas was not inclined even to tell Lee that an SCP researcher had visited their headquarters.... the disposition of the LC toward such interaction was epitomized by Kangas's response to a question about Lee's extensive use of allegory "You're not spiritual. You don't understand"."

"The LC and Witness Lee were invited to read our revised manuscript and were given the prerogative of attaching a five page response to appear as an Appendix. Lee expressed his refusal to accept our offer in a certified letter dated May 22, 1979."

From what we have read here already, we see strong refutation (and presumably, physical evidence IE certified letters and telegrams) that DCP's story about "The authors and publishers ignor(ing) appeals from the Christians meeting in the local churches... & unsuccessfully "pleading" with the authors and publishers of these books" must be called into serious question. The burden of proof here in on the plaintiff - what evidence are they able to provide to refute SCP and prove that such appeals and pleadings took place?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

"...Researcher Neil Duddy went twice to Local Church headquarters in Anaheim, California, and spoke with Lee's two chief apologists. At the close of the second session... Duddy was told that Lee, for reasons of principle, does not respond to criticisms or questions from outsiders. LC executive Ronald R. Kangas was not inclined even to tell Lee that an SCP researcher had visited their headquarters.... the disposition of the LC toward such interaction was epitomized by Kangas's response to a question about Lee's extensive use of allegory "You're not spiritual. You don't understand"."

Based on what "principle" does one not respond to questions and criticism from others?

Doesn't the classification of other Christians as "outsiders" indicate a sectarian attitude?

It seems to me that the attitude displayed here by WL, Ron Kangas, and LSM is the height of arrogance. Am I mistaken?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Note: "We have earnestly sought a personal audience with Witness Lee in order that our understanding of his teachings and practices might once and for all be substantiated or corrected (DCP claims this was never done). Before the initial printing of The God-Men by (SCP), a certified letter requesting an appointment with Lee and with two LC representatives was sent to Lee's home. The receipt was returned to our office, bearing Mrs. Lee's signature, but with no reply. After a reasonable wait, we sent Lee a telegram, again urging him to respond to our invitation to dialogue. We received no response."

"...Researcher Neil Duddy went twice to Local Church headquarters in Anaheim, California, and spoke with Lee's two chief apologists. At the close of the second session... Duddy was told that Lee, for reasons of principle, does not respond to criticisms or questions from outsiders. LC executive Ronald R. Kangas was not inclined even to tell Lee that an SCP researcher had visited their headquarters.... the disposition of the LC toward such interaction was epitomized by Kangas's response to a question about Lee's extensive use of allegory "You're not spiritual. You don't understand"."

"The LC and Witness Lee were invited to read our revised manuscript and were given the prerogative of attaching a five page response to appear as an Appendix. Lee expressed his refusal to accept our offer in a certified letter dated May 22, 1979."

If this is all fact, then it is "par for the course". Whether you're an outsider or an insider, Neil Duddy found out as did Harvest House (in the last decade), and as did several former members of the local churches myself included, the leadership does not respond to questions or criticism. Moreover if you're an insider, criticism will result in persona non grata.

[UntoHim]

Ray, thanks for taking the time of starting this thread. I think it is worthwhile for us to review, mainly because the Local Church has changed quite a bit from the 70s (and somewhat for the better I might add). The bottom line, however, is that many, if not most, of the accounts, descriptions and criticisms found in this book were valid and largely accurate at the time they were written. I will repeat something I said from the outset:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Something to keep in mind is that both of these books were produced in th 70s at a time when The Local Church was somewhat secretive and extremely uncooperative towards all outsiders (Cult busters or no). The authors were forced to fill in a lot of blanks when it came to writing about the teachings and practices. So I don't think the "unscholarly" term applies as much as incomplete and or not fully accurate....and considering who they were dealing with it's a wonder they got as much information as they did. Not giving excuses, but these books need to be placed within the context of the time they were produced. Nevertheless, in the case of the Mindbenders, I don't think the Local Church should have been included with non-Christian cults such as the Unification Church and Hare Krishna, and in the case of The God-Men, I think the book cover played upon any prejudices the American public may have against Asian believers.

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

UntoHim, this book is nothing like what you have suggested here (perhaps you're relying on something you heard while you were within the "Local Church"?). Rather than being "unscholarly" or "incomplete", "The God-Men: An inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church" is in fact very well researched and thoroughly documents what Neil Duddy uncovers in his four years of research WITHIN the Local Church. Duddy also went out his way to check the facts with the men best equipped to give them to him: Witness Lee and the closest members of his entourage.

Ray, I don't think you carefully read what I wrote...at least this reaction from you indicates that you didn't. No worries though, this happens all the time around this place!

Anyway, I just wanted to remind everybody of the timeframe we are dealing with here. Even society in general has changed greatly from the 70s. This same goes for little sub-cultures like the Local Church. Again, it does not change the facts as they were presented in the book....so let's carry on, shall we?

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ray, I don't think you carefully read what I wrote...at least this reaction from you indicates that you didn't. No worries though, this happens all the time around this place!

My apologies brother, I meant no offense! I was only saying that what I'd heard about the book doesn't seem to jive so far with what I've now read.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

"...Researcher Neil Duddy went twice to Local Church headquarters in Anaheim, California, and spoke with Lee's two chief apologists. At the close of the second session... Duddy was told that Lee, for reasons of principle, does not respond to criticisms or questions from outsiders. LC executive Ronald R. Kangas was not inclined even to tell Lee that an SCP researcher had visited their headquarters.... the disposition of the LC toward such interaction was epitomized by Kangas's response to a question about Lee's extensive use of allegory "You're not spiritual. You don't understand"."

"The LC and Witness Lee were invited to read our revised manuscript and were given the prerogative of attaching a five page response to appear as an Appendix. Lee expressed his refusal to accept our offer in a certified letter dated May 22, 1979."

IMHO this is what happened: Witness Lee brought his brand of Christianity to the U.S. and arrogantly promoted it while demeaning all others. Thing is: in America Christians are outspoken and there are apologists who will research your claims and publish their findings. They may even present counter arguments to your claims. They won't kowtow to you as some sort of MOTA with special authority who cannot be questioned. How did Witness Lee and the LC system react? They refused to sit down with these men and later sued them instead.

What the LC was able to do in the 1970s was bankrupt SCP and threaten others with expensive lawsuits if they did not settle. A couple of decades later they tried the same tactics with Harvest House who had deep pockets and a deep pocket insurer who would not cave in to the demands of the LC system. Litigation ensued and we got to see how it played out in court in real time thanks to the Internet - a communication tool that wasn't around in the 1970s.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

"...Researcher Neil Duddy went twice to Local Church headquarters in Anaheim, California, and spoke with Lee's two chief apologists. At the close of the second session... Duddy was told that Lee, for reasons of principle, does not respond to criticisms or questions from outsiders. LC executive Ronald R. Kangas was not inclined even to tell Lee that an SCP researcher had visited their headquarters.... the disposition of the LC toward such interaction was epitomized by Kangas's response to a question about Lee's extensive use of allegory "You're not spiritual. You don't understand".

This particular line has bothered me, and it's bothered me for one reason: RK is alluding to Scripture here. What he's alluding to is John 3:3 "Truly truly I say to you, unless one is born anew he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

I will assume that RK meant what he said - he wasn't saying this because he didn't want to discuss matters with Neil Duddy - he was saying it because he believes that Neil is incapable of understanding the language used by Witness Lee precisely because he hasn't been regenerated.

IF I assume this to be true, then I have to ask: What responsibility does RK have to an unregenerated unbeliever (or "nominal christian") who comes to him seeking the truth? Does he have the right to dismiss him, or does the Lord call him to do more? Would the Lord call him to witness to this man? To tell him HOW to receive the Holy Spirit? Isn't that our calling?

I would also ask, what standard is RK using here that allows him to determine that ND was an unregenerated unbeliever?

Just questions I want to raise - I will not provide my answers to them.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

This particular line has bothered me, and it's bothered me for one reason: RK is alluding to Scripture here. What he's alluding to is John 3:3 "Truly truly I say to you, unless one is born anew he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

I will assume that RK meant what he said - he wasn't saying this because he didn't want to discuss matters with Neil Duddy - he was saying it because he believes that Neil is incapable of understanding the language used by Witness Lee precisely because he hasn't been regenerated.

IF I assume this to be true, then I have to ask: What responsibility does RK have to an unregenerated unbeliever (or "nominal christian") who comes to him seeking the truth? Does he have the right to dismiss him, or does the Lord call him to do more? Would the Lord call him to witness to this man? To tell him HOW to receive the Holy Spirit? Isn't that our calling?

I would also ask, what standard is RK using here that allows him to determine that ND was an unregenerated unbeliever?

Just questions I want to raise - I will not provide my answers to them.

These are valid questions but not for a law court. The Lord will be the judge.

The issue becomes this: if these two parties are unable to fellowship as brothers in Christ are they then forced to resort to the legal recourse afforded all citizens of the US?

Second, if they decide they are unable to fellowship as brothers, why is that? Who bears responsibility for this?

[ABrotherinFaith]

Hello all,
A quick semi related question:

How does Paul's appeal to Caesar fit into this. I ask because I have heard it used as an excuse for LSM to "appeal" to the courts.

Thanks,
A brother in faith

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Hello all,
A quick semi related question:

How does Paul's appeal to Caesar fit into this. I ask because I have heard it used as an excuse for LSM to "appeal" to the courts.

Thanks,
A brother in faith

Hello Brother!

I see no one has answered your question, so I will try to do it justice here:

LSM needed to provide Scritural evidence to their supporters and detractors alike that there can be times when taking a matter before a secular authority is not only acceptable for a believer, it is even proscribed. The Scripture they use is from the book of Acts (see Chapter 25). Here we find that Paul has been held in a kind of protective custody for some years, and now a new man has been put in charge of the district - Festus. Festus hold's Pauls fate in his hands, and doesn't really know what to do with him. Festus is not a believer in Jesus Christ, and sees a political opportunity for himself in delivering Paul over to the Jews for trial in Jerusalem. Paul realizes his goose is cooked if he's sent back there, so in a last ditch attempt to avoid a tragic ending, he appeals to Caesar (as is his right as a Roman citizen).

Does this argument hold water?
You didn't precisely ask this question, but I think you alluded to it. LSM is trying to liken their situation in regards to publishings which cast them in a negative light to Pauls imprisonment by unbelieving Roman officials, while being charged with crimes by unbelieving Jews. You see, the common denominator in this situation that Paul is in, is that there IS no Christian brother making charges against him - rather, it's unbelievers. Further, no Christian brother is keeping him - he is surrounded by the unbelieving. Secular law is his ONLY possible resort.

That is certainly not the case with this trial, nor was it with the Harvest House trial which Terry has been sharing information on here. In both cases, LSM brought litigation against Christian brethren, which is forbidden by Scripture.

One might ask, "as American citizens, do we not have the right to bring a matter such as this to court"? To which I would answer: As American citizens, you ABSOLUTELY have the right to take this matter to court - just as you also have the right to practice Islam or Witchcraft or Satanism, or to use late-term abortions as a form of birth control, or to marry same sex partners or multiple partners (in a number of states, anyway), or to get divorced as often as you like, or to drink to the point of inebriation regularly.... Heck, there's a lot of things one can do as an American citizen... But seriously: citizens of Christs' Kingdom ought to know that they are held to higher standard.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Note: "We have earnestly sought a personal audience with Witness Lee in order that our understanding of his teachings and practices might once and for all be substantiated or corrected (DCP claims this was never done). Before the initial printing of The God-Men by (SCP), a certified letter requesting an appointment with Lee and with two LC representatives was sent to Lee's home. The receipt was returned to our office, bearing Mrs. Lee's signature, but with no reply. After a reasonable wait, we sent Lee a telegram, again urging him to respond to our invitation to dialogue. We received no response."

"...Researcher Neil Duddy went twice to Local Church headquarters in Anaheim, California, and spoke with Lee's two chief apologists. At the close of the second session... Duddy was told that Lee, for reasons of principle, does not respond to criticisms or questions from outsiders. LC executive Ronald R. Kangas was not inclined even to tell Lee that an SCP researcher had visited their headquarters.... the disposition of the LC toward such interaction was epitomized by Kangas's response to a question about Lee's extensive use of allegory "You're not spiritual. You don't understand"."

"The LC and Witness Lee were invited to read our revised manuscript and were given the prerogative of attaching a five page response to appear as an Appendix. Lee expressed his refusal to accept our offer in a certified letter dated May 22, 1979."

From what we have read here already, we see strong refutation (and presumably, physical evidence IE certified letters and telegrams) that DCP's story about "The authors and publishers ignor(ing) appeals from the Christians meeting in the local churches... & unsuccessfully "pleading" with the authors and publishers of these books" must be called into serious question. The burden of proof here in on the plaintiff - what evidence are they able to provide to refute SCP and prove that such appeals and pleadings took place?

The emphasis of this post is not about the book, but to show a track record of how outsiders and insiders too are responded to when asking questions or addressing issues.

http://static.harvesthousepublishers..._Lawsuit_3.pdf

In a news release dated June 20, 2003, Local Church spokesman Dan Towle stated, ―Harvest House Publishers and its authors chose to ignore our year–long efforts to resolve this issue.‖42 And on their website www.contendingforthefaith.org, in an article titled ―Facts about Pending Litigation with Harvest House Publishers and Authors,‖ The Local Church claims Harvest House Publishers and authors Ankerberg and Weldon ―utterly disregard[ed their] letters‖ and that there was an ―aggressive refusal to give timely consideration‖ to their appeals.

These allegations are seriously misrepresentative, for in fact, every letter from The Local Church received a timely and courteous response from Harvest House and Ankerberg and Weldon. For the sake of setting the record straight, here is a detailed chronology of what happened:

January 11, 2001—The Local Church Writes to Harvest House: The Local Church sent their first letter of complaint, which was only one page long, general in nature, and did not point to the specific problems they alleged were in the Encyclopedia. In a clear reference to a previous lawsuit filed by some Local Churches, they closed their letter with these words: ―We hope you know that this kind of writing has been ruled as libelous concerning us in the past.‖

January 19, 2001—Harvest House and Authors Respond to The Local Church: Because of The Local Church‘s reference to libel, and because of Harvest House‘s desire to maintain the highest of integrity in any matter in which libel might possibly be involved, Harvest House answered through one of its attorneys and asked for ―written information‖ that would help us to evaluate The Local Church‘s concerns and provide them ―with a meaningful response.‖ Response time: 8 days.

May 16, 2001—The Local Church Writes to Harvest House: Surprisingly, The Local Church took almost four months to respond to Harvest House‘s January 19 letter. In this one–page letter The Local Church indicated a desire to meet to discuss the book, but again, never provided specific explanations that would help Harvest House and the authors to know which statements in the Encyclopedia were allegedly problematic. In the letter, The Local Church referred to ―preparing to answer‖ via lawyers, and cited a 1985 lawsuit filed by the Local Churches. (In that suit, The Local Church obtained a default judgment—a judgment in which the losing party ―defaults,‖ or is unable to or does not defend itself. The ministry that The Local Church sued had to declare bankruptcy because it could no longer afford the cost of defending itself.)

Continued in Next Post

[TLFisher]

June 4, 2001—Harvest House and Authors Respond to The Local Church: Harvest House and authors Ankerberg and Weldon answered directly, and for the second time, asked for specific details instead of general complaints: ―we are requesting that you provide us with a written explanation of your specific objections....we shall thoroughly evaluate it, approaching the evaluation with an open mind.‖ This letter also stated, ―If we feel that there would be any benefit in having a meeting as suggested in your letter, we shall certainly contact you to arrange for it.‖ That hardly constituted an ―aggressive refusal‖ to The Local Church‘s attempts to resolve the issue. Response time: 19 days.

November 20, 2001—The Local Church Writes to Harvest House: Nearly a year after The Local Church sent its first complaint letter and more than five months after Harvest House sent its second request for their specific objections about the text of the book, The Local Church finally sent a lengthy written explanation of what they viewed as errors in the Encyclopedia. Ironically, while The Local Church took 10 months to supply the information Harvest House and the authors had originally requested back on January 19, The Local Church firmly demanded that Harvest House respond to the lengthy compilation of allegations in a mere two weeks. The Local Church also closed the letter by emphatically stating, ―Your failure to do so will give us little alternative but to pursue legal action against you.‖

November 29, 2001—Harvest House and Authors Respond to The Local Church: Once again Harvest House replied immediately, explaining that the company ―has just moved its offices, and we are currently in the process of completing our transition. In addition, as I‘m sure you realize, during the holiday season, it is extremely difficult to devote the time necessary to a project such as this in order to truly do it justice.‖ Still, Harvest House promised to provide a response, and stated that ―the points made in your letter will be carefully reviewed and evaluated.‖ Response time: 9 days.

Contrary to The Local Church‘s claim that Harvest House ―utterly disregard[ed their] letters,‖ in every case, Harvest House sent a gracious and timely response. More importantly, because The Local Church waited until November 20, 2001 to detail their complaints, Harvest House and the authors were left for nearly a full year in the awkward position of not knowing how they should evaluate The Local Church‘s undefined complaints about the Encyclopedia. All the complaints in The Local Church‘s first two letters (January 11 and May 16) were very vague and never pinpointed which statements in the Encyclopedia were supposedly defamatory. While waiting for this information from The Local Church, authors Ankerberg and Weldon had, in fact, carefully reevaluated the Encyclopedia‘s chapter on The Local Church to ensure it was accurate, and confirmed that indeed it was.

To be continued

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Statement from The Prosecution (taken from DCP's website):
"Sadly, there were (in the late 70's) a few Christians who for various reasons opposed this speaking (that all believers should be living and functioning members of the Body of Christ). Some held a concept of the Christian faith that was strictly objective and doctrinal. Uncomfortable with the entirely Biblical stress on the need to experience the indwelling Christ, they labeled it as an un-Christian and even as Eastern mystical teaching. Others were motivated by a desire to maintain some level of prominence in Christian work. They felt threatened by a teaching that opposed the hierarchical clergy-laity system of today’s Christianity, encouraged all of God’s people to learn to speak for and serve God as priests, and presented a simple way for believers to meet together in the oneness of the Body of Christ..."

I excerpted this directly from DCP's website, and directly there from the portion pertaining to the trial in question. This was published as their justification for the lawsuit. I just want to take a look at it again.

DCP here is alleging that the reasons that SCP printed their books were any one of the following:

1) They opposed the speaking that said that all believers should be functioning members of the body.

If you click on the reference link for SCP, you will see that it grew out of the Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF). It was a group of ex-hippies (or still-hippies) who came to Christ from lives that were tangled in the drugs and the counter-culture movement of that era. These were "Jesus People" - not Baptists or Catholics or Presbyterians. They were believers who WERE functioning members of the Body. They met in peoples homes and read the Bible together - they were not a part of ANY establishment and did not build their own "church". Remember that they were/are a parachurch organization: "Parachurch organizations are Christian faith-based organizations that work outside of and across denominations to engage in social welfare and evangelism, usually independent of church oversight. These bodies can be businesses, non-profit corporations, or private associations" (wikipedia). That being the case, I have to say this charge doesn't logically apply to SCP.

2) Some held a concept of the Christian faith that was strictly objective and doctrinal.

Strictly objective and doctrinal? As used here, I believe "Objective" means "(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" (wikipedia). And "Doctrinal" means "Concerned with a doctrine or doctrines" (wikipedia).
In the case of a secular lawsuit, Objective is a good thing. It disproves malicious intent. In the case of Doctrinal, I would think that would be hard to prove of a parachurch organization which presumably is made up of members who may come from different churches with different theological doctrines - but the case may prove me wrong. Let's keep an open mind on this one.

3. Uncomfortable with the entirely Biblical stress on the need to experience the indwelling Christ, they labeled it as an un-Christian and even as Eastern mystical teaching.

This statement would need to be proven, and perhaps it can be through the course of our reading.

At this point (just as an aside), let me point out that DCP is couching things in LSM-speak here quite a bit. It becomes apparent early on that this defense of their right to litigate is published for their own members, rather than for the public at large. I also find it interesting to note that they accuse SCP of relating what they do to "Eastern mystical teaching". I haven't encountered that charge by SCP (yet) - but IF true, I find it an interesting one. SCP, again, rooted in the counter-culture movement, had numerous members who were Saved from the eastern mystical religions found on the campuses in those times. In fact, SCP did a great deal of work exposing "gurus" - so they are intimately familiar with "Eastern Mystical Religions".

Now let me ask a question quickly - and I haven't seen this in the book: But what is the difference between calling on the Lord as is done in the Meeting Halls, and using a Mantra? Just a question.

4) Others were motivated by a desire to maintain some level of prominence in Christian work.

Does or did SCP have such a prominence? This is a charge that DCP would have to prove.

5) They felt threatened by a teaching that opposed the hierarchical clergy-laity system of today’s Christianity.

Again, this group didn't come from "that day's Christianity" - they were "Jesus people", folks that most straight laced, suit wearing, Sunday church going families (not that there's anything wrong with that) wouldn't know what to make of, let alone what to do with. They met in houses, read the bible together, went to many different churches, weren't affiliated with any particular church, didn't subscribe to any particular doctrine (that we've read or that I can yet find), and didn't have a hierarchical structure. This claim by DCP seems more than far fetched. On the contrary, the Jesus People sure sound like they did a whole lot of what the early members of the LC did.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

1) They opposed the speaking that said that all believers should be functioning members of the body.

If you click on the reference link for SCP, you will see that it grew out of the Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF). It was a group of ex-hippies (or still-hippies) who came to Christ from lives that were tangled in the drugs and the counter-culture movement of that era. These were "Jesus People" - not Baptists or Catholics or Presbyterians. They were believers who WERE functioning members of the Body. They met in peoples homes and read the Bible together - they were not a part of ANY establishment and did not build their own "church". Remember that they were/are a parachurch organization: "Parachurch organizations are Christian faith-based organizations that work outside of and across denominations to engage in social welfare and evangelism, usually independent of church oversight. These bodies can be businesses, non-profit corporations, or private associations" (wikipedia). That being the case, I have to say this charge doesn't logically apply to SCP.

The book was commissioned by either Inter Varsity or Campus Crusade. I don't remember which. These were campus organizations not affiliated with a particular denomination that were designed to steer believers to them. Their gospel was weak and ineffectual and they became jealous of the LRC gospel work. As a result they commissioned this book and once it was published they distributed it. This analysis is far too naive.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The book was commissioned by either Inter Varsity or Campus Crusade. I don't remember which. These were campus organizations not affiliated with a particular denomination that were designed to steer believers to them. Their gospel was weak and ineffectual and they became jealous of the LRC gospel work. As a result they commissioned this book and once it was published they distributed it.

Really? Because I thought you said the manuscript was self-published and later Inter-Varsity bought it to publish.

And I think you are conveniently omitting a few essential facts. Both Inter-Varsity and Campus Crusade are long standing para church ministries that have had a tremendously positive impact around the world with young people. They are not affiliated with any particular church.

Christians on Campus is an offshoot of the LC system affiliated with and staffed by the LC in each location and also serve as outlets for LSM materials. Their goal is to recruit young people to join their church.

Instead of suggesting that Inter-Varsity and/or Campus Crusade were jealous of the LC system's campus work (far-fetched when you consider their size and reach) why not at least entertain the thought that they genuinely believed the LC system was a cult and wanted to warn people not to join it?

IMHO what has happened in the LC system since Duddy was first published only serves to confirm his concerns. Imagine if he had Witness Lee stating that he was the only oracle of God on the earth since 1945? Or imagine if he had the quote by Benson Phillips that if you leave the LC system you cannot be sanctified. Or how about material on the ouster of Titus Chu for not following the one publication policy of a publishing company 3000 miles away? He could have a heyday with this crazy stuff!

[Nell]

An historic oldie that some may be interested in. Some quotes and discussion.

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Good morning saints:

I recently purchased this book, and at the time I am posting this, I have not yet read far into it. That said, I wanted to share it. This book, or more specifically the lawsuit launched against it by Witness Lee, is cited within the Christian community as more reason than any other to damn LSM. For this reason, I think we owe it to SCP to hear what they had to say - indeed to hear what Witness Lee and LSM didn't want any of us to hear. Because it was undoubtedly the tithes and offerings of Local Church members that were used to silence SCP's voice - making those of us who were a part of a Local Church in those days, party to that sin.

What God says: "When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!"

The Defendant: The Spiritual Counterfeits Project (also known as SCP) is a Christian evangelical parachurch organisation located in Berkeley, California. Since its inception in the early 1970s it has been involved in the fields of Christian apologetics and the Christian countercult movement. Its current president is Tal Brooke. In its role as a think-tank SCP has sought to publish evangelically-based analyses of new religious movements, New Age and alternative spiritualities in light of broad cultural trends.

The origins of the SCP are grounded in the Christian counterculture movement (also known as the Jesus Movement or Jesus People) of the late 1960s. As a parachurch organization, much like the Gideons, it is made up entirely of Christian lay-people, and not of clergy. In 1968 some staff members of Campus Crusade for Christ conceived of the need to contextualize the Christian message for radical and revolutionary university students. The key figures were Jack Sparks and his wife, Patrick and Karry Matrisciana (also known as Caryl Matrisciana), Fred and Jan Dyson, Weldon and Barbara Hartenburg. In April 1969 Sparks and his colleagues commenced their ministry at the University of California, Berkeley.

The Case: In 1977 InterVarsity Press released an 80 page booklet by the SCP called The God-Men: Witness Lee and the Local Church. It was updated and released as a full-length book in 1981 as The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee and the Local Church. This is the book from which I will be reading. 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.

Over a period of four and a half years the pre-trial preparations and depositions, involved expenditure that brought SCP into legal debt with their defense lawyers. The defamation trial was scheduled to commence on March 4, 1985. According to Bill Squires "the lawfirm representing us withdrew from the case" and so the decision was taken to file for a reorganizational bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court. Squires states, "that move imposed an immediate stay on the plaintiffs' action against us, thus ending the financial drain of litigation. On that day, SCP, while continuing its larger ministry, officially dropped out of the lawsuit."

The Charge against SCP: Defamation.
California Elements of Defamation

Defamation, which consists of both libel and slander, is defined by case law and statute in California. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 44, 45a, and 46.

The elements of a defamation claim are:

1. publication of a statement of fact
2. that is false,*
3. unprivileged,
4. has a natural tendency to injure or which causes "special damage," and
5. the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.

Publication, which may be written or oral, means communication to a third person who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made. Publication need not be to the “public” at large; communication to a single individual other than the plaintiff is sufficient. Republishing a defamatory statement made by another is generally not protected.

Statement from The Prosecution (taken from DCP's website): "Sadly, there were (in the late 70's) a few Christians who for various reasons opposed this speaking (that all believers should be living and functioning members of the Body of Christ). Some held a concept of the Christian faith that was strictly objective and doctrinal. Uncomfortable with the entirely Biblical stress on the need to experience the indwelling Christ, they labeled it as an un-Christian and even as Eastern mystical teaching. Others were motivated by a desire to maintain some level of prominence in Christian work. They felt threatened by a teaching that opposed the hierarchical clergy-laity system of today’s Christianity, encouraged all of God’s people to learn to speak for and serve God as priests, and presented a simple way for believers to meet together in the oneness of the Body of Christ...


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).

Many of the members of the local churches made phone calls and wrote letters to the authors and publishers protesting the falsity of these books’ serious allegations. The authors and publishers ignored these appeals from the Christians meeting in the local churches. In addition, Witness Lee and the local churches also published booklets and articles to refute these opposers’ misrepresentations and accusations. After unsuccessfully pleading with the authors and publishers of these books to retract their libelous content, second, more damaging editions of both books, as well as a third book entitled The New Cults, were published.

Because no legal action was taken by the local churches to protest the first editions of these books, a second generation of books and articles were published by others based almost entirely on the misinformation in the initial few books. After suffering defamation for almost a decade, and having exhausted all less aggressive means of reconciliation, Witness Lee and the local churches followed the Apostle Paul’s precedent of appealing to Caesar, that is, the legal system, for protection from his religious opponents (Acts 25:11)."


With this history in mind, let us dive in to this book which LSM and Witness Lee label as defamatory, and - as a jury now made up of peers, let us hear the case that never made it before a judge. Let us arrive together at a verdict.

References
http://watch.pair.com/scp-duddy.html
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org...ons/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheLocalChurch
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...defamation-law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritu...rfeits_Project
http://www.scp-inc.org/