Cult Watchers Reconsider - Christianity Today Article

[Cal]

An article from Christianity Today:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/januaryweb-only/104-11.0.html

Cult Watchers Reconsider
Former detractors of Nee and Lee now endorse 'local churches.'
Collin Hansen | posted 1/26/2009 09:58AM

Two notable critics have changed their minds on the controversial "local churches" movement that follow the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute (CRI), and Gretchen Passantino Coburn, director of Answers in Action, each published their new support in a November booklet by the Defense and Confirmation Project, founded to rebut criticism of Nee and Lee.

Hanegraaff says the local churches fit neither the theological or sociological definition of cultic activity. (CRI published critiques in the 1970s that influenced other watchdog groups.) Passantino Coburn, who coauthored The New Cults with Walter Martin, writes passionately and personally about the "most significant reassessment from my career."

"If you are a parent, proud of your young adult offspring's seemingly overnight spiritual blossoming but afraid that he or she is going to crash and burn in spiritual chaos, let me reassure you," Passantino writes. "The local churches are a legitimate, theologically orthodox, spiritually faithful involvement by means of which you offspring can develop genuine Christian commitment and maturity. They are not a dangerous ensnarement of the Devil."

The booklet also includes a three-year-old statement from Fuller Theological Seminary. Three Fuller faculty members—president Richard Mouw, theology dean Howard Loewen, and systematic theology professor Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen—met five times face-to-face with influential local church figures to discuss their beliefs. The Fuller representatives cited several areas of special concern, "such as the Trinity, the mingling of divinity and humanity, deification, modalism, their interpretation and practice of the 'local' church, the divine and human natures of Christ, and their attitude toward believers outside their congregations."

Now, the Fuller statement says, its faculty and administration "unreservedly recommend that all Christian believers likewise extend to them the right hand of fellowship." As a result of the Fuller dialogue, representatives of the local churches and LSM editors published a 39-page statement of their teachings in January 2007. But LSM spokesman Chris Wilde said the document has not been widely distributed.

The movement Nee founded during the 1920s in China subsequently spread to the West. After Nee died in 1972 in a Communist jail, Lee became the group's most prominent teacher. He died in 1997. The local churches claim more than 30,000 U.S. adherents and over 800,000 in China. Two of the group's traits immediately strike many evangelicals as strange. First, churches affiliated with this movement take no name except a geographical marker, such as "the local church in Chicago." Second, the group has no authority structure.

Lee was also very critical of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, raising concerns that the local churches regarded themselves as the only legitimate Christians. His statements prompted 60 evangelical leaders (including Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary and Paige Patterson of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) to publish an open letter in January 2007 asking the local churches and their publishing service, Living Stream Ministry (LSM), to disavow Lee's doctrinal statements and criticism of evangelicals. Wilde said the local churches issued invitations to dialogue with each signatory but did not near back from any.

As criticism has mounted, the local churches have sought help from other evangelicals. LSM was granted membership in the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association, and exhibited at the International Christian Retailers Show. (LSM has also sued critics. In June 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear its appeal of a rejected $136 million libel lawsuit against John Ankerberg and John Weldon, authors of The Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions.)

But the group has not renounced Lee's most controversial teachings, and that's the key problem for critics such as Calvin Beisner, formerly of CRI.

Beisner faults Lee on a number of points, including two forms of modalism condemned by the early church's ecumenical councils, and said no critics who have changed their mind—including his sister, Passantino Coburn—have yet documented how former concerns about Lee were actually misrepresentations.

"Merely issuing doctrinal statements that are orthodox so far as they go but do not explicitly repudiate the contrary statements of Lee is not sufficient," Beisner said. "As Francis Schaeffer insisted again and again, in our postmodern world we must not only say what we believe, but also must deny what we don't believe. The Worldwide Church of God set a good example in the 1980s, repudiating the heretical teachings of its founder Herbert W. Armstrong, and it is not asking the Local Church too much to do the same."

But Hanegraaff says members of the local churches demonstrate theological acumen: "I have witnessed in them a keen interest in doctrinal precision sadly missing today in major segments of the evangelical community."

Passantino Coburn says the group's remaining critics should engage in deeper research. She said that further reading about the group's teachings revealed connections with persecuted churches and ancient Eastern church history, such as a "less purely analytical but more fully personal theology."

"When I applied the templates of the persecuted church and Eastern church to the local churches, I saw that, regardless of their formal association or derivation, the similarities were unmistakable, understandable, and fully within orthodoxy," she told Christianity Today. "This does not mean that I agree with every local church teaching, nor does it mean that I do theology like the local churches. But it does mean that I can more fully understand and appreciate that theology, and can be confident that while different, it is not heretical."

Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today.

[Ohio]

The link that Igzy provided above has a comments section following the article, which is worth the read. John Myer and Nigel Tomes and others have commented there. Here it is:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/....html?id=72760

[Cal]

Is it just me or does Passantino seem a little overly gushing? I mean, isn't it a bit strange for her to go out of her way to so blithely inform parents that their children will be fine and dandy in the LC? Seems to me that is a bit inappropriate. And why should she stick her neck out like that?

Seems like she's overcorrecting a bit.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the LSM spinmeister Chris Wilde & Co went over and pitched Hank and Gretchen on the "orthodoxy" and normalcy of their Lee Church. You know: what really went on behind the scenes.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by djohnson

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall....

...or a teller at the bank where they cashed the check

Originally Posted by Igzy

And why should she stick her neck out like that?

Yes, good question. My guess would be that some money was stuck in someone's pocket before they stuck out their neck. There was definitely some sort of quid pro quo. We already know for sure that the LSMers are capable of just about anything (and I do mean anything)....and as for Hanegraaff...well let's just say that there are enough "bitter ex members" of his regime at CRI to have filled in some of the suspicious blanks left on purpose by the Hankster, so we pretty much know what he is capable of as well. Now Gretchen, dear ole Gretchen.... I would not have thought that she would have succumbed to the wiles of The Blended & Company. Her late husband Bob and late mentor Dr. Walter Martin must be turning over in their graves.

[UntoHim]

AS POSTED AT:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/.../104-11.0.html

HN
Posted: February 04, 2009 8:47 AM
HN. With respect, you really don't have your facts straight. I am part of no "group." The quote you made was from an open forum and the comment was one individuals' opinion. I don't necessarily agree with it. But it's a free Internet and people can post what they want. Yes, I have an agenda. My agenda is that people would know the whole truth about LSM. Not just the sunny, PR side that they want people to see. Why is that a problem and why would you seek to discredit my character about it? I suppose Because It's Light Brought On Domineering Old Guard. Peace to you too.

Human Nature
Posted: February 03, 2009 8:41 PM
CB, this will be my last comment here. Regarding this article, it is recorded in your group's forum the following: "John Myer and Nigel Tomes and others have commented there... My guess would be that some money was stuck in someone's pocket before they stuck out their neck. There was definitely some sort of quid pro quo." It is clear that your group has an agenda with regard to the LC. It seems odd to me that the only person you are arguing with here is one who has no stake in the debate one way or another. If your group is counter-cult then they certainly have a lot to learn about Christian ethics. At least the anti-LDS and anti-JW groups show some compassion and love for those with whom they disagree. You guys have a big axe to grind, and it's obvious that you have no desire for closure, but just want to be vindicated in your own right. Again, no wonder you're not getting the apology you're looking for. You're like children stomping your feet. I feel sorry for you. Peace.

GB
Posted: February 03, 2009 3:31 PM
Human Nature, the watchers did not just attempt to vindicate LC theology, but also their social behavior. Quote: "Hanegraaff says the local churches fit neither the theological or sociological definition of cultic activity." So behavior and practices affecting members are fair game in this discussion. Further, Passantino assured everyone that their children would be safe in the LC. So evidence to the contrary is on the table, and testimony of "those dwelling on the negative" is relevant and appropriate. In fact, your attempt to discount those people is an attempt to exclude relevant testimony about the alleged cultic behavior of the LC, which is what this discussion is about.

Human Nature
Posted: February 03, 2009 2:58 PM
CB, I don't see it that way. Theology is the formal study of religious doctrine; and philosophically it's how God interacts withj humanity. LC theology is apart from the various problems it's had in its administration and how it deal with the different splits it's had over the years. Lots of church groups have their splits for different reasons that have nothing to do with the orthodoxy of their doctrine. MAAD is an organization dedicated to raise awareness of the problem of drunk driving, and trying to keep people from committing this crime. I see no comparison at all between the discussion forums mentioned earlier and MAAD. Besides, as Christians we're supposed to be above the sort of talk that I've witnessed on those forums. There's a lot of character attack, insinuation about sexuality and adultery, etc. I'm glad the subjects of this article didn't get into that. It has nothing to do with the theological soundness of the LC. They seem to get it, where you don't. I'm done.

GB
Posted: February 03, 2009 2:19 PM
The LSM way of dealing with abused former LC members who speak out is a variation of the "nuts and sluts" defense employed by Bill Clinton's supporters whenever he got caught with his pants down. Villify the abused woman. Call into question her saneness and character. Human Nature employs this technique well. As did Benson Phillips, LSM President, when he accused Jane Carole Anderson of being "rebellious" after the release of her book "The Thread of Gold" in which she accounts the craven way she was abusively disciplined by LC leaders in the 1970s. Phillips defended that treatment of her in an members-only meeting a few years ago, showing no remorse whatsoever, and saying they absolutely did the right thing to Anderson.

GB
Posted: February 03, 2009 1:48 PM
Human Nature. When it comes to the abuse of members of a group there are no "internal affairs." Further there is no separation between theology and treatment of members, between beliefs and practices. Darn right some people "dwell on the negative," if that's how you want to characterize it. Read Jeremiah. He dwelt on the negative, too. The fact is most of these people don't dwell on the negative for personal satisfaction, but rather to try to help stop the abuses of others. Would you say the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, whose child was killed by a drunk driver, was dwelling on a negative by harping on drunk driving until something was done? So your characterization of the abused is a complete non sequitur. Your appeal to deal with things privately might make sense if there were any hope it would work. LC history says it won't. So your appeal for private dealing rings hollow, as it all too conveniently plays to the advantage of the alleged abusers.

Human Nature
Posted: February 03, 2009 11:49 AM
CB. It seems to me, as one on the outside, that your beef with the LC is one of how they dealt with certain interrnal affairs, not related to their theology. This article has nothing to do with controversies in the LC, it has to do with their theology. From the research I've done over the past couple of days I found that the LC dealt very clearly with the issues of theology, and their openness to allow others to scrutinize them is very clear. On the other hand there are pockets of people that dwell on the negative, and seem intent on rehashing old issues. I don't blame the LC for not publicly dealing with these issues. These are matters that should be dealth with privately. What good is airing "Dirty laundry" on the web? What do these people seek to gain anyway? They only make themselves look bad. If it's a support group that's one thing, but if it's just a venue for complaining then I doubt the Lord blesses it. The Lord never complained about His offenses. Neither did Paul.

GB
Posted: February 03, 2009 8:42 AM
As to what Jesus would do in this day and age, HumanNature, I doubt he would be suing any publishers that seemed slanderous, or setting up propaganda websites like AFaithfulWord.org filled with half-truths and severely slanted history in order to prop Himself up and slam his opponents. Jesus was quite comfortable competing in the arena of ideas, as was Paul. The LSM however, with their cadre of legal experts and highly skilled wordsmiths is never seem publically exgaged in a level-playing field debate. Why? The only answer must be they have no confidence in their message to prevail in the arena of ideas, and so must use cleverness and subterfuge to win. As to "bitter" people "attacking" the LSM/LC. Many of those people don't want to see others damaged by a group which plainly sends the message that a Christian life outside of LSM/LC is one outside of God's most perfect purpose. As long as LSM spouts its elitest nonsense, expect faithful prophets to speak truth to power.

Fuller Supporter
Posted: February 02, 2009 3:03 PM
It's a shame that a person's personal prejudice could be so implementable in the clouding of a persons ability to reason. Fuller theological seminary is the largest, most well-respected institution of theological learning in the entire earth. Their alumni are among the most well-read and thoughtful evangelical leaders of our time. It is absurd to postulate any ulterior motive for theirs or any other's conclusions concerning the Local Church. To hint at such wrongdoing absent any substantive evidence is not only shameful, it's unbecoming of our calling as Christians.

Ron Starling
Posted: February 02, 2009 2:15 PM
As some have already commented, having the likes of Hank Hanegraaff or a few of the progressive types over at Fuller seminary endorse your theology is not going to cut it among most well read and thoughtful evangelics of the day. Most could not care less what Hank has to say anymore, even Walter Martin's own daughter will have nothing to do with him, and for very good reason. CRI has sold out to a number of cultic and new age type organizations over the years, handing out "endorsements" , kind of like politicians hand out pork to those special interests that greased their palms. How shameful for a once reputable and proud organization! Somebody needs to tell Gretchen Passentino that she is making a BIG mistake. Whatever she is getting out of this is just not worth it. The Local Church is obviously playing the "if you can't beat em (in court), join em" game. One wonders what is going on behind the scene. Hey Gretchen, why don't you send your OWN kids to the Local Church cult!

HumanNature
Posted: February 01, 2009 1:13 PM
Interesting to see these viewpoints. I think that neither side wins, really. Among all Evangelical groups there are some that are opposed to certain doctrines, practices, theology, etc. People have left many denominations due to lack of love, care, and because they thought something being done, or not done, was wrong. It's nothing new. I like what an earlier comment pointed out: There are just a lot of bitter people out there. It's not what you DO about problems of the past, it's what you choose to DO WITH those offenses. Had the internet been around during the time our Lord Jesus walked the earth, I doubt that He would have created entire web pages solely dedicated to "exposing" brothers and sisters in their wrong doing, and attempting to vindicate His own opinion in certain situations. Likely He would have simply walked away, left it alone, and shaken the dust from His feet. I wonder if those bitter people truly realize what they are creating with all the negativity?

Sue
Posted: February 01, 2009 8:58 AM
I find it almost amusing that we should ..."offer them the hand of fellowship". Is no one listening? The Defense team came to our small locality, sued us and took the property. I met for 30 years with them and now if we don't tow the line with materials from LSM the Defense team moves in and sues the noncompliant ones. Strange way to prove how loving and fundamental they are.

Eat_the_peach
Posted: January 31, 2009 7:53 PM
If Hank Hanegraaff and the liberals over at Fuller are the only ones to endorse your theology then that is not much to hang your hat on. In fact in the recent past many evangelicals are distancing themselves from them because they have strayed from historic doctrines. In reading some of the available quotes from Watchman Nee and Witness Lee is is pretty obvious that they decidedly strayed a long long time ago. To add to their bad theology they sue other Christians who criticize them. I also found this open letter produced by 70 evangelical theologians and scholars at www.open-letter.org So it looks like the numbers are against the Local Church *** 70 - 3 *** Boy I hope my Arizona Cardinals don't get whipped that bad tomorrow!

KissTheSon
Posted: January 31, 2009 7:47 PM
Allow me to say that not everyone who has left the Local Churches is bitter in heart and regurgitating past hurts. After two decades in the Local Churches, I acknowledge that there was lots of "wheat" that was very helpful, but there was also lots of "chaff" that was very harmful to my going on with Christ. When our dear Lord led me out of the Local Churches, I thanked Him for the "wheat" and I asked Him to heal the damage from the "chaff". End of story. My whole family is actually doing much better away from the Local Churches. The two most helpful comments I have seen so far were: "The Local Churches are not heretical, but some of Witness Lee's teachings are unorthodox." and "My analysis is that the Local Church of Witness Lee is essentially a splinter group of the exclusive brethren gone badly astray. It is the group's obsession with Lee, not some doctrinal tenet, that causes most lay observers to label it a cult." I appreciate the balance shown in these two comments!

loverofchrist
Posted: January 31, 2009 4:07 PM
Poormansprophet wrote, "Right we are not in the 70s or 80s so why do folks in the Local Church continue to wallow in Lee's bazaar and heretical teachings from the 70s and 80s?" Answer: Because, according to Fuller, Hanegraaff, Passantino, and many others, Lee's teachings are neither bizarre nor heretical. Some may not like Lee, may not like his teachings, think our practices are strange, whatever, but consistently - time and time again - established, well known, well educated, and well respected theological scholars and teachers of our time, have affirmed the perfectly orthodox and historical soundness of local church doctrines and teachings. Just read the report!

Nathaniel
Posted: January 31, 2009 3:13 PM
Poormansprophet and others of his ilk, want an extended and comprehensive "apology" of all past sins, offenses, and mistakes by the leadership of the local churches. However, although apologies have been made in the past, and considerable time and effort have gone into thorough clearance of past mistakes through explanation, this essentially amounts to "it's not good enough for me." Yes, there are places on the web where you will find the bitter in heart regurgitating past hurts and using them as fuel for their undelivered flesh. But clearly absent is the spirit of forgiveness and understanding that we all have inherited the same fallen nature, and there simply is no grace given to that aspect; and certainly there is no forgiveness possible when one expects that his selfish demands for particular and all-inclusive apology and groveling be met. In short: There simply is no satisfying those who are so bitter that they have forever set themselves against this ministry, no matter what.

Poormansprophet
Posted: January 31, 2009 10:23 AM
QUOTE BY: Nathaniel "A previous commenter said that "back in the 70s and 80s...." We're not in the 70s or 80s. While some people may have made mistakes back then, to err is human (and to forgive is...?) The local churches have grown a lot since the days of the Jesus freaks and other "Christian movements." Right we are not in the 70s or 80s so why do folks in the Local Church continue to wallow in Lee's bazaar and heretical teachings from the 70s and 80s? "people may have made mistakes"? I have yet to see any Local Church or LSM officials/leaders admit the slightest mistake! Did you hear the "interview" (really just infomercial for LC) Hanegraaff did with Wilde and Yu??? They admitted NOTHING. They apologized for NOTHING. And worse they LIED through their teeth about what is taught and believed behind closed doors. "The local churches have grown a lot"??? Really? Let's hear the details . To see the truth wwwthebereans.net & wwwlocalchurchdiscussions.com/forum

Peter Simon
Posted: January 30, 2009 9:03 PM
Hmmm . . . not sure what to think about all this. If you really want to know the spirit in which Watchman Nee lived and ministered, the best place to go is the ministry of Stephen Kaung. Stephen Kaung was a close co-worker of Watchman Nee in Mainland China. Brothr Kaung's ministry is really precious and enlightening. I am not sure why Witness Lee and his sucsessors never mention faithful servants of the Lord like Stephen Kaung, Bakht Singh, etc. I wonder if anyone at Living Stream Ministry has ever told Hank Hanegraaff that Hank lives only a short distance away from Stephen Kaung? Brother Hank obviously thinks very highly of Watchman Nee and the persecuted churches in China. When Hank H. finds out that he has lived so close to a co-worker of Watchman Nee for all these years, and no one ever told him, Hank is not going to be happy!

KissTheSon
Posted: January 30, 2009 8:16 PM
I am a former member of the Local Churches, having spent two decades of my life there. Our dear Lord Jesus Christ led me and my family out of the Local Churches several years ago. Allow me to say that not everyone who left the Local Churches is bitter and not everyone outside the Local Churches is fake and shallow. I still have lots of fond feelings for many of the dear brothers and sisters in the Local Churches. An honest appraisal of the Local Churches would admit that while there is much there that is praise-worthy, there also much there that is cringe-worthy. Sad to say, there is a very noticeable lack of love in the Local Churches. There is also a very noticeable lack of repentance in the Local Churches. Instead of a spirit of love and a spirit of repentance, there exists a terrible spirit of religious jealousy which leavens (in a bad way) everything about Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. Another site to check out is makingstraightthewayofthelord.com.

Daniel
Posted: January 30, 2009 7:02 PM
I wonder if any of the detractors who have posted here in the past few days have actually taken the time needed to completely read and understand the booklet put together by the brothers at the Defense and Confirmation Project. it doesn't seem very likely, since the statements made by Hanegraaff and Passantino were very well written and wonderfully expressed. These, two, plus Fuller, plus many other persons were given free reign into the local churches, to see for themselves what we're really all about....And still the detractors insist that they don't know the whole story. Not likely. I think that there are just some very bitter people. It's a shame, really.

Sal, Fargo
Posted: January 30, 2009 4:27 PM
I meet as a local church and have read enough of LSM's published materials on which I can state that: what we are seeing as the result of this article in CT is a shameful exposure and bitter expression of the fake and shallower religious community. Christians hanging Christians. However, I am glad that this article came out in CT. Much of the mess is due to the factors of self-interest, power struggle, and trying to become the center of attraction. For those who hate local church and Witness Lee -this article and CRI's evaluation and statement is an uncomfortable dose of existing reality. Those who meet as local churches look at this as nothing more than a former unfriendly critique turned to fellowship, friendship, and mutual respect.

Ohio
Posted: January 30, 2009 1:32 PM
Apologetics who love to obsess about modalistic trinitarian theology and the like, don't have a clue what life in the Local Churches is really like once some decide to distance themselves from the all-encompassing entanglements of the Living Stream ministry. They use the bully pulpit to smear the reputations of other ministers who prefer to minister from the Bible directly without the use of their own publications. Their current teachings and practices have so devolved over the years that Watchmen Nee, their so-called founder, could not recognize them, much the same as Moses could never recognize life under the Pharisees who claimed him as their founder. Through their legal team called the Defense and Confirmation Project, LSM operatives have wrought havoc on numerous churches via lawsuits and "insurrections" toward local elderships. LSM has become the "master of spin." Their smooth and flattering rhetoric towards outsiders cant fool those who have witnessed their wrath for years.

mr po from hongkong, china
Posted: January 29, 2009 8:54 PM
who is to judge who is orthodox and who is heresy amongst evangelicals and evangelical groups? i would say none. as the chinese saying goes, they are all shan tze wang--little kinglets in their own mountains. mentally speaking, this is fundamentalists fighting fundamentalists. what a recurring theme and what a mess.

Samuel Yu
Posted: January 29, 2009 3:59 PM
My experience with the local churches during my college years was completely different from Kelly's. Rather than feel like I was being manipulated, I was helped to know the Lord personally, and encouraged strongly to read the Bible for myself, and not just take things at face value. On the contrary, the focus was never on obscure facts or trivia, but on the deep truths found in the Word. For this, I am and always will be grateful.

Nathaniel
Posted: January 29, 2009 3:09 PM
I've been in the local churches for many years. They have never locked me in a room or forced me to do anything that I did not want to do. Some people mistake zeal for strangeness. A previous commenter said that "back in the 70s and 80s...." We're not in the 70s or 80s. While some people may have made mistakes back then, to err is human (and to forgive is...?) The local churches have grown a lot since the days of the Jesus freaks and other "Christian movements." Why not give them a break and stop living in the past? We in the local churches haven’t harbored any ill feelings toward the people that picketed our church buildings on Sundays, and handed out tracks and “anti-Lee” material to members as they exited Lord’s Day meetings. That actually happened. It was horrible for those who experienced it. We let it go a long time ago.

kelly
Posted: January 29, 2009 9:30 AM
I have to disagree. I was hotly pursued by the local church during college and they were manipulative and coercive. Even though they claim no authoritative leadership, there were people who definitely exerted heavy-handed control within the congregation. As a pretty biblically well-taught, but naive young person, I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong, but I felt a very strangling, unhealthy feeling after initially feeling drawn to their seemingly biblical approach. I was tricked several times into meetings to "convert" me. They said that if I would just say "Oh Lord Jesus" three time, that I would be saved. They liked to "pray read" the scripture, or "eat the Word", seeking out passages that were obscure and puposely avoided understanding the context and meaning so that the Word would bypass their mind and go to their spirit. I extracted myself from their clutches and now as a more mature believer and Bible teacher, I would discourage anyone from involvement with them

Poormansprophet
Posted: January 29, 2009 8:32 AM
I was in the Local Church back in the heyday of the 70s and 80s when they openly scorned and mocked other Christians. They wanted nothing to do with “Christianity” and they shouted this at the top of their lungs. As many former members and even leaders have stated right here the Local Churches are really just a somewhat benign personality cult whose “personality” is now dead. I have it from reliable sources that the Local Church is about 1/3 the size it once was here in America and they are losing members in droves because of the information on the internet. Back in the 70s Witness Lee and his minion elders would just lock everybody inside the meeting halls and tell the members that all the critics were just blind, poor, dead in spirit and lost stars who will spend 1,000 years in outer darkness for criticizing him and the “recovery”. Thank God these people cannot get away with this kind of cultic and childish behavior anymore.

NC
Posted: January 28, 2009 9:39 PM
Thank you, CT, for publishing this article. And thank you, Hank and Gretchen, for doing what few have the grace to do. My prayer is that the thousands of young people in the local churches all over the earth will rise up, shake off the "cult" stigma, and shine forth as luminaries. It has been somewhat of a rite of passage for us, usually in college, to suddenly and without explanation lose Christian friends with whom we have just begun to enjoy the Lord Jesus, calling on His name, and praying over His Word. I lost one friend in college this way, and for a whole year he refused to speak even one word with me. Finally I ran into him on a bus and found out his pastor had given him CRI material and told him that hearing even one word from me could bind him under an evil spell. I am so thankful that now we have something from CRI and Answers in Action that we can give to our friends to inoculate them against such ridiculous poison! Thank You, Lord Jesus, for answering our prayer!

Jonathan
Posted: January 28, 2009 10:41 AM
CF's comment of yesterday is just one of many examples of the type of superstitious beliefs that start rumors about the local churches. I have been under the lord's ministry led by brothers Nee and Lee for 14 years and I have never once read or heard any such "curse" leveled by Lee or Nee against any person or group. The fact that a person got a piece of bad fish or indigestion and had a spooky dream is simply not enough to give a person pause concerning the spirit of this ministry. I would hope that any rational Christian would take the time to "test the spirits" a little more thoroughly.

HJ
Posted: January 28, 2009 1:30 AM
It would be of great interest to have LSM say something and then follow through with accompanying action. We have heard all the beautiful words and then watched destruction follow. At one point a relative was afraid to come to our home because we no longer met with the LSM approved "local church." LSM expects every "local church" to receive a standing order of articles, books, audio and video tapes. If they don't, they are not considered a true church. Check the "Recovery Version New Testament" put out by LSM. Concerning Matthew 16:18 Witness Lee's footnote states: "...The Lord is not building His church in Christiandom, which is composed of the apostate Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations. This prophecy is being fulfilled through the Lord's Recovery" [i.e., "recovery" means the local churches] "in which the Genuine Church is being accomplished..." Sectarian? Very. Many other footnotes are similar. Watchman Nee didn't have these divisive views.

CF
Posted: January 27, 2009 9:41 PM
I haven't written before, but feel I must. I know how The Local Church nearly wrecked our lives from one visit back in the 70s. My husband (a pastor) told a chaplain friend who asked him about the Local Church what he thought after we had visited. My husband told him that it was all very enthusiastic but that he thought it probably had an anti-Christ spirit. That night he had a terrifying dream that he had blasphemed the Holy Spirit. This started an entire series of tormenting emotional/spiritual afflictions that went on for years. Only later did we read in a booklet a Witness Lee quote that laid a heavy curse on anyone who would speak against their movement. I know firsthand what a powerful spirit this was. Not only that, but they managed, over the years, to silence any critics via their enormous lawsuits. You wonder why I didn't sign my last name? Shame on the Christian leaders who are capitulating and bowing to this cult group that thinks it is the only true church.

Ovedya
Posted: January 27, 2009 4:31 PM
I'm glad to see that Hanagraaf and the Passantino's finally came around. It only took 30 + years! I noticed that "Anton" commented above. I hope that this is not the same "Anton" that founded Apologetics Index." "AI" has a long way to go in the area of grace, I must say. Prayerfully, may he not take 30 years himself coming to know the truth in matters which he's presently not qualified to comment on. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see that brothers which the local churches have long respected and desired to open fresh dialog with have found sufficient grace to publicly announce their approval of this ministry. Perhaps now many years of hurt can be put behind these two groups and some new and living fellowship can be had between them.

Anne
Posted: January 27, 2009 12:12 PM
I enjoyed Watchman Nee's books too, but I was a little shocked when I read Witness Lee's statements about us becoming God, and that he's against Christendom. It seems to me, that he's a little confused now, which probably has nothing to do with Watchman Nee, who's already with God now. It's a little weird, that there's too much fuss about Lee, I don't like when people begin to follow a man rather than Christ...

Marie Natha
Posted: January 27, 2009 9:25 AM
Follow the money!

Jerry
Posted: January 26, 2009 9:39 PM
It's always interesting to see how people protect and defend their human nature. Nee and Lee are both amazing desciples!

james
Posted: January 26, 2009 9:06 PM
The theological issue had to do with the way Lee emphasized the trinity in the experience of the believer and in the process of salvation. He emphasized that upon the ascension the Christ became the Spirit. Based on a literal greek translation. The western church's view of the Trinity emphasizes the eternal existence of the 3. Lee would often stress the 1 in 3, and at times 3 in 1, whichever seemed more closely in line with the experience of Salvation. Much as you would find in Teresa of Avila, or Madam Guyon- or other mystics. This drives strict theologians crazy who typically have less experience of the Spirit and more intellectualizing. Another point of contention is that Lee makes much of the Holy Spirit living in one. That we are being transformed into something beyond comprehension. Some of the earlier critics hated that. You can look up Living Stream Ministries on the internet and call their 800#. I know they will be happy to talk with you- or put you in contact.

Timothy Law
Posted: January 26, 2009 8:06 PM
I would like very much if someone could tell me the source of Francis Schaeffer's emphasis: "we must not only say what we believe, but also must deny what we don't believe". Thank you.

Ruth
Posted: January 26, 2009 7:52 PM
The author of the article assumes that the reader understands the background of this story. I would like to have seen him give us a more well rounded idea of what the controversial theology actually is. I have enjoyed reading Watchman Nee's books for many years and did not know that there was a "movement" based on his teaching. Would love to know more.

Isaiah Tor
Posted: January 26, 2009 7:23 PM
I greatly appreciate that the local churches have begun to be properly understood by these brothers in the Lord. I pray that a greater number of believers will truly see the riches of the New Testament ministry presented through the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee enjoyed by the saints in the local churches and beyond. It is really hoped that the apostle Paul's aspiration for all the churches on the earth to enter into a genuine and bountiful fellowship of the Body of Christ under the absolute headship of Christ would be realized in due time in the present age. Let us more and more in the oneness of the Spirit, call upon this Christ, this all-inclusive Jesus Christ, enjoying Him to the uttermost, the uniquely precious One who is "theirs and ours" (1 Cor. 1:2). Praise the Lord!

Mark SV
Posted: January 26, 2009 4:51 PM
What I find so upsetting about all this is that Hank would participate in a serious lawsuit against legitimate Christian parachurch organizations. This is such a breach of 1 Cor 6 that it is amazing anyone still considers him to be an effective Christian witness. I cut off all giving to CRI several years ago over this and other issues.

Nigel Tomes (Toronto, CANADA)
Posted: January 26, 2009 4:41 PM
As a longtime (35+ years) member of the Local Church movement, who is among a group of churches which have separated from Living Stream Ministry (LSM) please permit me to comment. Personally I do not consider the Local Church Movement to be heretical. However, I do consider some of Witness Lee's teachings to be unorthodox--for e.g. their Three-stage Pneumatology, their Satanology (that the Person of Satan indwells the believer) and their Bibliology (not every word of Scripture is the Word of God). [Recent articles on these topics are posted on www.concernedbrothers.com especially the "Reconsideration" section.] Some local churches have separated from Living Stream Ministry and are re-assessing Witness Lee's teachings in the light of Scripture.
Nigel Tomes, Toronto, CANADA

John Mck.
Posted: January 26, 2009 4:33 PM
I here ya Dan

John
Posted: January 26, 2009 4:26 PM
Regardless of what the Local Churches teach about the trinity or other doctrinal mainstay, weird extremes exist in the group and have done great damage to ex-members and even entire churches that sought to escape its influence. I am an ex-member and leader who after 22 years of involvement, lead his church out of the Living Stream/Witness Lee orbit. My analysis is that the Local Church of Witness Lee is essentially a splinter group of the exclusive brethren gone badly astray. It is the group's obsession with Lee, not some doctrinal tenent, that causes most lay observers to label it a cult. I am amazed that alleged experts investigated the group and didn't see this behavior firsthand. Makes me wonder what they were allowed to see. Or what they didn't want to see. At definite cardinal points, the group acts like a personality cult. I have written an online book that addresses these issues and gives some advice to churches that want out of the Movement: www.assemblylife.com

Adam
Posted: January 26, 2009 4:20 PM
I'm glad to see the orthodox police are hard at work.

Gary VanRiper
Posted: January 26, 2009 4:08 PM
Since when was Watchman Nee linked with the heresy of Witness Lee? Watchman Nee mostly solid. Witness Lee defected. Seems to take less and less time for history to be rewritten.

The Bob
Posted: January 26, 2009 3:37 PM
The big question is Hank Hanagraaf and his organization a cult? Look at Hank's salary and benefits!

Craig S. Prest/U.N.I.
Posted: January 26, 2009 2:34 PM
Personally, I am glad that Watchman Nee is being given some peace by detractors, many who have never suffered or endured a fraction of what Nee and his early followers did in their early days. It took me about 20+ years to begin to understand Nee's writing in Spiritual Man and the like (some of his other writings were easier). There are places I may disagree with, but on the whole, his so called "Theology" gave the steel and discipleship to thousands of believers in China and then later with believers in many nations that would have been deprived of help by cerebral "arm chair" critics. Yes, set doctrince "right" but be sure to leave a good testimony intact! Few saints understand God perfectly. Believers who are "positional" in practice or conduct, etc. with little experience of truth in daily life, will likely find Nee excruciating at times and accuse him of legalism. Nee probably strayed there at times (as don't we all?) Sometimes we've behaved as political parties instead of Saints.

Anton
Posted: January 26, 2009 1:55 PM
What a sad state of affairs when former cult watchers exchange spiritual discernment for a let's-all-just-be-friends approach. By way of reminder, there were good reasons why the Local Church was included in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions: http://cli.gs/mqQ9zM Nothing is the behavior or theology of Living Stream Ministry/Local Church has changed any of those reasons.

The G
Posted: January 26, 2009 1:49 PM
I agree with Dan. When will all Christians return to the Scriptures only? Whether they are right or wrong is according to what God breathed out--not according to any man. We don't need any men's opinions. No pope. No dope.

Atilla
Posted: January 26, 2009 12:58 PM
Indeed a bit more details would be nice to LSM. Here is the link to their site and statement of faith: www.lsm.org/lsm-statement-faith.html Francis Schaeffer had it right.

Dan
Posted: January 26, 2009 12:13 PM
Whew, well I am so GLAD that Hank Hanegraaff has approved! What a relief. Without his official stamp of approval, where would we all be?

Charitas
Posted: January 26, 2009 11:45 AM
This article could benefit with a doctrinal statement from LSM. This would perhaps clarify in the readers mind if there is a problem. Otherwise we are receiving opinions of only second and third hand sources.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My guess would be that some money was stuck in someone's pocket before they stuck out their neck. There was definitely some sort of quid pro quo. We already know for sure that the LSMers are capable of just about anything (and I do mean anything)....and as for Hanegraaff...well let's just say that there are enough "bitter ex members" of his regime at CRI to have filled in some of the suspicious blanks left on purpose by the Hankster, so we pretty much know what he is capable of as well.

I'd like to add a little insight to this point, UntoHim, as I was in the "Local Church" when the CRI publication We were Wrong came out. Here are some interesting facts about the matter:

1) Shortly before the CRI issue came out, LSM in Anaheim sent a letter to the local churches. In that letter (and I don't have a copy, so I am working from memory and cannot provide direct qutoes - so I will stick to generalities) we were told:
(a) that a massive retraction was being made, that would legitimize us
as genuine Christians and that this was the Lord's doing.
(b) We were told that we should purchase many copies of this issue
(please order in advance, available through LSM) so that we can
use them to counter those we meet who claim we were in a cult.
(c) That we should remember that even though CRI was coming out to
admit they were 'wrong' about us, this did not mean we were
wrong about them. This issue was good to have and read, but
do not go reading other issues, as it is all leaven.

My church in Winnipeg, consisting only of 60-80 or so members, bought (I would estimate) more than 100 copies of this issue. I feel much more, but I can't say for certain. If that one small group purchased so many copies through LSM, and, knowing LSM sent this letter to all affiliated churches, I must wonder how many issues LSM purchased from CRI.

2) The same year that this issue came out from CRI, I went to Anaheim for short term training. While I was there, this topic was brought up. I was told that Hank had went with "leading brothers" overseas, to meet with churches in Asia to 'apologize'.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Now Gretchen, dear ole Gretchen.... I would not have thought that she would have succumbed to the wiles of The Blended & Company. Her late husband Bob and late mentor Dr. Walter Martin must be turning over in their graves.

I can't say what Dr. Walter Martin himself might say, but have you read this on his blog (as posted by his daughter):

from: www.waltermartin..com/2006/10/dare-any-of-you-having-matter-against.html

Sunday, October 15, 2006

"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?

Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!" 1 Cor 6:1,7-9

This is one of those days when I have to write about something unpleasant. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the details, the Local Church sued Harvest House, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon in December, 2001, claiming they defamed them in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions. I'm not going to go into details on this lawsuit
(http://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/about_cstatementfaq.cfm) but recently something new occurred that requires comment.

In August, 2006, Hank Hanegraaff and Gretchen Passantino filed statements with the Texas Court of Appeals in defense of the Local Church--and consequently--in support of the Local Church's position in this lawsuit.

Why is this a problem? In the 1970s my father met with Witness Lee in an effort to discuss the theology of the Local Church before he commented on it publicly. My father felt that the Local Church was dividing the Church of Jesus Christ. They were using methods of evangelizism and biblical interpretation similar to those used by the cults, and my father believed they were in serious error. Bob and Gretchen Passantino did extensive research on Witness Lee and the Local Church at my father's request. They provided him with the primary documentation he needed to challenge them. As a result of this research, my father gave his lecture on the Local Church:

http://www.waltermartin.com/listening_library/Witness_Lee11.ram

http://www.waltermartin.com/listening_library/Witness_Lee12.ram

Today, it seems not much has changed in the methodology and beliefs of the Local Church (http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/lc.html#easy ). CRI must agree that not much has changed (http://localchurch.8m.com/cri-dl-075.html ) and yet, Hank Hanegraaff and Gretchen Passantino (Christian Apologists) decided to publicly support the Local Church against John Ankerberg and John Weldon (Christian Apologists) and men with a record for a bold defense of the Christian faith.

Why did they do this? Only God, Hank, Gretchen, and the Local Church know the answer to that.

The Local Church is upset--they reject any link to the word "cult". My answer to the leaders of the Local Church is this: if you are truly Christian brothers, then show the love of Christ. You have no business taking your brother to court. You are acting more like cult members than Christians. Stop it now.

To Hank I would say this: Actions speak louder than words. Either stand by CRI's position on the Local Church, or take it down. Don't say one thing and do another--that makes you a double-minded man (James 1:23). And while you're at it, drop your lawsuit against your brother in Christ, Dr. William Alnor. Where is the love of Christ in your actions?

To Gretchen I would say this: You should be ashamed. You know better.

How foolish are these lawsuits in the light of God's instructions to us? You tell me:

"And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." Eph 4:32

Who is being kind? Who is tenderhearted? Who is forgiving?
I think my father got it right when he pounded the pulpit and said, "The whole world is going to Hell around us, and we're fighting about nothing!"

Jill
Disclaimer: These statements are purely my opinion and no slander, libel or defamation is intended herein.

Want to get involved? Tell people how you feel!

The Local Church
http://www.localchurch.org/contact-us/index.htm

John Ankerberg
http://www.johnankerberg.com/survey-series.htm

Gretchen Passantino
http://answers.org/

Hank Hanegraaff
http://www.equip.org/

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

(c) That we should remember that even though CRI was coming out to admit they were 'wrong' about us, this did not mean we were wrong about them. This issue was good to have and read, but do not go reading other issues, as it is all leaven.

Thanks for this...I heard similar things as well. Why didn't Hank Hanegraaff insist that the LSM reps clearly repudiate the false and divisive teachings and practices, like he did with the reps of the World Wide Church of God (Herbert Armstrong) before giving them a clean bill of health? There is only one good answer for this question...and the answer is not pretty.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

[/SIZE]Want to get involved? Tell people how you feel!

The Local Church
[/COLOR]http://www.localchurch.org/contact-us/index.htm[COLOR=#000000]

If my communication with Ron Kangas is any indication, no surprise this localchurch.org link doesn't work anymore. Simply do not want to be forthcoming nor transparent on any questions.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

An article from Christianity Today:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/januaryweb-only/104-11.0.html

Cult Watchers Reconsider
Former detractors of Nee and Lee now endorse 'local churches.'
Collin Hansen | posted 1/26/2009 09:58AM

Two notable critics have changed their minds on the controversial "local churches" movement that follow the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute (CRI), and Gretchen Passantino Coburn, director of Answers in Action, each published their new support in a November booklet by the Defense and Confirmation Project, founded to rebut criticism of Nee and Lee.

Hanegraaff says the local churches fit neither the theological or sociological definition of cultic activity. (CRI published critiques in the 1970s that influenced other watchdog groups.) Passantino Coburn, who coauthored The New Cults with Walter Martin, writes passionately and personally about the "most significant reassessment from my career."

"If you are a parent, proud of your young adult offspring's seemingly overnight spiritual blossoming but afraid that he or she is going to crash and burn in spiritual chaos, let me reassure you," Passantino writes. "The local churches are a legitimate, theologically orthodox, spiritually faithful involvement by means of which you offspring can develop genuine Christian commitment and maturity. They are not a dangerous ensnarement of the Devil."

... But the group has not renounced Lee's most controversial teachings, and that's the key problem for critics such as Calvin Beisner, formerly of CRI.

Beisner faults Lee on a number of points, including two forms of modalism condemned by the early church's ecumenical councils, and said no critics who have changed their mind—including his sister, Passantino Coburn—have yet documented how former concerns about Lee were actually misrepresentations.

"Merely issuing doctrinal statements that are orthodox so far as they go but do not explicitly repudiate the contrary statements of Lee is not sufficient," Beisner said. "As Francis Schaeffer insisted again and again, in our postmodern world we must not only say what we believe, but also must deny what we don't believe. The Worldwide Church of God set a good example in the 1980s, repudiating the heretical teachings of its founder Herbert W. Armstrong, and it is not asking the Local Church too much to do the same."

But Hanegraaff says members of the local churches demonstrate theological acumen: "I have witnessed in them a keen interest in doctrinal precision sadly missing today in major segments of the evangelical community."

Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today.

My feeling on this has "evolved" over the years I have spent discussing, debating and arguing these various points on these forums. As a result I want to start again with this question. For the purpose of this discussion this is the modified definition of cult that I am working from. I have not added anything to the Oxford dictionary's definition, only narrowed the focus so that each point can apply specifically to the LRC.

Cult -- 1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards one person.
2. a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded as sinister by others.
3. a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person


First, I think it is important to note how the term "cult" is not defined as a heresy but rather as veneration and devotion directed towards one person which is misplaced or excessive. This is similar to the New Testament verse where the Lord tells us to "call no man your father". It is also similar to where the apostles asked to sit on the right hand and left hand of Jesus which sparked a jealous feud.

Second, the practices and beliefs must be considered "sinister" or "pernicious".

Finally, I want to emphasize that this definition in the Oxford dictionary is not in anyway related to "heresy". I don't think it is necessary to conclude that the LRC is a cult based on first proving that they are not Christian or that they don't believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior, or that God has been manifested in the flesh, etc. Instead I think it is tied to the verse where Paul says "if in anything you are otherwise minded..." I believe it is possible to conclude that the LRC is composed of genuine believers who in a few salient points are "otherwise minded" thus becoming a cult.

Cult -- 1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards one person.

Veneration refers to deep respect and admiration. Devotion refers to obedience toward a person that is based on a religious belief, in other words your obedience is seen as a religious observance.

First I would say that if you are in a group that is not a cult then your response would be "I have no idea what you are talking about". This is certainly not the case with the LRC. Immediately there are two names that come to mind. We could play 20 questions with every former member of the LRC and only give them 2 chances and I would guess they will all win.

Witness Lee and Watchman Nee are both afforded deep respect and admiration and obedience to their teachings is seen as a religious observance in the LRC.

This becomes a "cult" of personality, in my opinion, when it becomes sinister. and it becomes sinister when the life stories of these two are "fabricated".

Witness Lee and the LSM have fabricated 3 different and false explanations for why Watchman Nee was excommunicated. These fabricated stories are all designed to present Watchman Nee as a superspiritual apostle who was falsely accused by the elders and suffered this fate as a lamb. These stories are sinister.

Likewise, false stories about Witness Lee and his family have been fabricated and published by the LSM. For example, the fermentation of the present rebellion. The explanation for the "Max Rebellion". The "Sister's rebellion". Etc. In every case saints were standing up for righteousness and these same saints were smeared by Witness Lee and his cronies with a story to present Witness Lee as a super spiritual apostle being unfairly attacked by rebellious saints.

Therefore, based on the first definition of a cult I would conclude that the LRC is a cult.

2. a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded as sinister by others.

The LRC under the direction of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee hold to a teaching on the ground of the church which is clearly considered to be sinister by the rest of the Body of Christ. Based on this teaching the saints in the LRC separate themselves from other Christians and often condemn all other Christians for what they teach as "divisive". The only way for this schism in the Body to be fixed would be for all other Christians to repent of their divisive ways and join the LRC and submit to their leadership. The absurdity of this teaching is truly on the level of any cult.

Is this teaching Biblical? There is a very clear condemnation in the New Testament for being "divisive". Teachings that divide and separate one Christian from another are called "heresies" which are a work of the flesh. The teaching of the ground of the church has clearly been used to segregate and divide the LRC from the rest of the Body of Christ. Therefore it is fair to call it a heresy. It is a sinister practice which is pernicious in the way it creates a monopoly for Watchman Nee and Witness Lee as all other Christians and their ministry are polluted with "divisiveness" and therefore shunned and castigated.

The LRC also teaches that Watchman Nee and Witness Lee are "Ministers of the Age". They actually excommunicated one of their leaders, Titus Chu, because he didn't seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. To require this level of devotion to a ministry other than the New Testament can only be classified as a Cult.

Again, I would say that based on the second definition the LRC is a cult.

[Peter Debelak]

I agree with John Meyer's comment: it's not so much about particular doctrinal positions the groups takes - it is the group-think, personality led bent to the movement.

I personally think the critique of the group's "triune God" doctrine is barking up the wrong tree. I wonder how much, if at all, Hank and Gretchen spent time in the group and in the meetings. It's one thing to "hear about" preference for Witness Lee. Its another thing to see how often he is invoked, how "high" his teachings are, and how his teachings are used to create an environment of fear of leaving (Deputy Authority, feeling of the Body, etc...).

That's where the real questions arise.

[awareness]

Didn't we already hash this out? Or was that on TheBereans?

Hank's still hitting my inbox for money. His lust for mammon discredits anything he or CRI says or does.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Cult -- 1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards one person.
2. a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded as sinister by others.
3. a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person

The RcV may seem innocuous because it is quite similar to other study Bibles sold and the translation is acceptable.

However, the RcV is a vehicle to push the beliefs and practices regarded as sinister by others.

The RcV is a critical component in a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards one person. Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the RcV is the way they have substituted testimonies with parroting footnotes from the RcV. A testimony is a personal experience. However, they have taken the verse "Each one has...a teaching" and used that to justify just quoting footnotes as though that was a testimony. So a "testimony of your personal experience with the Lord" becomes a misplaced and excessive admiration for WL.

[UntoHim]

Did Hank or Gretchen address this matter of the footnotes in their "reconsideration", I don't believe that they did. My guess would be that they saw how many landmines were out there in that field and hoped that nobody would challenge them on this glaring exclusion. Do you think that just maybe they were concerned about those donors in "christless" Christianity being a little upset?