“Local Church ‘Cult’ Label has stuck”—says LSM Star turned Academic

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is a very good point. It is something all LC leaders need to read. Virtually all LCers are aware of the cult label, so it never ceases to amaze me that they wouldn't be concerned about various teachings and practices that would lead people to believe that the LC is a cult.

There are so many things that leaders could change in the LC help people view it as an average Christian group rather than a cultic one. Do they make these changes? Nope. Instead, they choose to sue for their reputation (which hasn't worked out too well for them). Consider this: while they were suing Harvest House to supposedly improve their reputation, they introduced their latest cultic practice, the One Publication. It seems pretty clear that they have no interest in making any changes . Everything has to be on their own terms.

The lawsuit was cultic in and of itself. They only proved that they are a cult.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

The lawsuit was cultic in and of itself. They only proved that they are a cult.

They have attained the same notoriety as other litigious religious groups like Scientology. I would hope that LCers wouldn't be delusional enough to believe they actually improved their image. I know for a fact that giving people the CRI journal to read hasn't worked out so well to "inoculate" new members. They still run away quickly, as they should.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I know for a fact that giving people the CRI journal to read hasn't worked out so well to "inoculate" new members.

As if CRI should offer instant credibility and negate any concerns and reservations one might have. On the contrary CRI never did any thing to offer regarding LC practices. These practices in itself results in a series of concerns.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

They have attained the same notoriety as other litigious religious groups like Scientology. I would hope that LCers wouldn't be delusional enough to believe they actually improved their image. I know for a fact that giving people the CRI journal to read hasn't worked out so well to "inoculate" new members. They still run away quickly, as they should.

The quarantine of Titus Chu began years before the actual event when he decided to instruct the GLA LC's not to participate in the Heritage House lawsuit.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The quarantine of Titus Chu began years before the actual event when he decided to instruct the GLA LC's not to participate in the Heritage House lawsuit.

It just goes to show how twisted the system really is. It's one thing to initiate a lawsuit against other Christians, but to expect all affiliated churches to participate is really pushing it. I guess what happened with the GLA shows what happens to those who don't do what the blinded brothers tell them to.

I remember when the HH lawsuit was about to happen, some brothers came to the LC's in our area from some "tellowship" about the lawsuit. It was basically a rationalization of what they were doing. They lead us to believe they had exhausted other all avenues and had no choice but to treat HH as tax collectors. Everyone swallowed that narrative without question. It sickens me to think about it now. I remember going to prayer meetings praying that we would win the HH lawsuit. There was just such arrogance about us being right and everyone else being wrong. The Lord was going to vindicate us, or so we thought.

I know I've said this already, but I think CRI's support of the LC eclipsed the court throwing out the HH lawsuit. At the point in time where things didn't go the way that DCP expected them to, LCers should have began to question leaders: What was the purpose of this failed lawsuit? What about all the wasted money? What about the court rejecting the premise of the lawsuit? Those are important question that should have been asked. Yet, when it happened, it was just quietly swept under the run and everyone moved on, not discussing it any more. Everyone was so excited about CRI supporting the LC that all attention went to that.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

What was the purpose of this failed lawsuit? What about all the wasted money?

Answer to both questions is an estimated 6 million US dollars.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The quarantine of Titus Chu began years before the actual event when he decided to instruct the GLA LC's not to participate in the Heritage House lawsuit.

Perhaps, that was received by the blended brothers as Titus Chu's feeling as a member of the Body as being rebellious against the fellowship given by Blended coworkers.
Call it hearsay, leading elders from various localities were asked how much could their localities be counted on to "pledge" to the lawsuit. Nothing from the GLA localities? That's rebellion, but then again what ever happened to each local church's administration being local. Rather it seems a localities administration is merely a rubber stamp for the edicts of a publishing house.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Perhaps, that was received by the blended brothers as Titus Chu's feeling as a member of the Body as being rebellious against the fellowship given by Blended coworkers.
Call it hearsay, leading elders from various localities were asked how much could their localities be counted on to "pledge" to the lawsuit. Nothing from the GLA localities? That's rebellion, but then again what ever happened to each local church's administration being local. Rather it seems a localities administration is merely a rubber stamp for the edicts of a publishing house.

The concept of "local" is today merely a ruse, and yes, absolutely loyalty is expected and demanded, even in the TC camp. Look what happened to John Myer.

It seems to me that Nigel has some explaining to do.

He quotes, and makes much noise about, a passage in Zimmerman-Liu/Wright’s draft article that was actually changed (and significantly so) in the final version, published in the online Journal of Church and State. Because the initial version, prepared for a meeting of the Western Political Science Association, was a work in progress, it clearly stated on the cover page, “Please do not cite or quote without the author’s permission.” Nonetheless, Nigel quoted it as follows:

“In the account of LSM leaders, around that time, overseas Local Church leaders sent two representatives to Dongyang in order to set up a local congregation there. However, Dongyang’s Christians did not welcome their arrival. Shortly thereafter, local TSPM and CCP leaders broke up the newly established Local Church congregation. Concurrently, a similar chain of events occurred in Dongwu county.” (emphasis added)

However, the final version reads:

“Around that time, TSPM leaders sent two representatives to Dongyang to set up a local chapter. However, Dongyang’s Christians did not welcome their arrival. Shortly thereafter, the TSPM representatives incited local cadres to violently break up various Christian meetings in the county. A similar chain of events occurred in Yiwu County, also in Zhejiang Province.” (emphasis added)

According to the final version of Zimmerman-Liu/Wright’s article, two TSPM representatives went to Dongyang County to set up a local TSPM chapter. When they were not welcomed by the Christians there, they incited violent breakups of Christian meetings.

Evidently, the draft article was in error when it said that two overseas Local Church representatives set up an unwelcome congregation in Dongyang, so the authors made the correction. Note that the Wikipedia entry addressing these incidents, which Nigel attempts to discredit in footnote 41 of his article, supports the corrected version of Zimmerman-Liu/Wright’s article. Nigel writes:

“We note that Zimmerman-Liu & Wright’s (peer-reviewed) account attributes the source of precipitating events to the actions of “overseas Local Church leaders [who] sent two representatives to Dongyang in order to set up a local congregation” This contradicts the account in the Wikipedia entry “The Shouters” which states that “On February 14–16 [1982], two representatives of the TSPM [Three-Self Patriotic Movement—government approved agency] had visited Dongyang to set up a TSPM chapter there.” In this Wikipedia account “the TSPM” was seeking to establish “a TSPM chapter,” rather than “Local Church leaders” trying to establishing a “Local Church congregation” (as Zimmerman-Liu & Wright assert). This Wikipedia entry appears to suffer the problem of multiple, conflicting entries on a controversial issue and the lack of “quality control.” I find Zimmerman-Liu & Wright’s account more credible.”

The “peer-reviewed” version of Zimmerman-Liu/Wright’s article is the corrected, Journal of Church and State version posted online, not the one that Nigel quoted from. He was aware that the final version was available, but he chose instead to quote from the draft version, claiming “fair use” privileges despite the authors’ request that the draft version not be quoted without permission. Footnote 8 of his article reads:

“The quotes in the present piece are from the version “Prepared for delivery at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association Seattle, WA, April 17-19, 2014.” This paper is available on line at:http://wpsa.research.pdx.edu/papers/...14%20paper.pdf The final, published version appears in the Journal of Church & State, Advance Access May 5, 2015 Our quotations from T. Zimmerman-Liu & T. Wright’s papers fall within the parameters of “fair use” for review purposes.”

So, I again suggest that Nigel has some explaining to do.

[UntoHim]

Response by Nigel Tomes
to the Post by “Unregistered Guest” 31 Aug. 2015

Dear “Unregistered Guest,”

Thank you for your response to my piece. Your comments (along with the posts of prior contributors to this thread) provide additional insights on the topic. I do not usually respond personally to comments on my articles. In this case, however, there are grounds to believe this comment originated from LSM’s Defense & Confirmation Project (DCP); plus the style and tone match those of DCP (in my view). Therefore, I shall respond in person.

1. Quoting for Zimmerman-Liu/Wright’s draft article

You are correct in asserting that my article quotes & cites Zimmerman-Liu/Wright’s draft article (April 2014), rather than the final published version (May, 2015). I made that fact clear in my article. Since the Zimmerman-Liu & Wright’s draft article (upon which my piece was based) was available on-line for free, it was more accessible & affordable for Forum members than the final published version, priced at $30 US [$40 CAN]. Unlike LSM/DCP operatives most contributors to this Forum are not financed by an organization with substantial resources.

Since the draft version of Zimmerman-Liu/Wright’s article correlates 99% with the final published version the draft’s “Please do not cite or quote...” request is abrogated upon publication. Your complaint on this score is misinformed; it is a typical of “red herrings” thrown out by DCP. As Witness Lee liked to say, “You are blowing the hair to find a fault.” I have not received any such complaint from the authors; I stand by the statement that my “quotations from T. Zimmerman-Liu & T. Wright’s papers fall within the parameters of ‘fair use’ for review purposes.”

2. Dongyang/Yiwu Incidents & the Shouters

Dear “Unregistered Guest,” your main point seems to be that the final, published version of Zimmerman-Liu/Wright’s article differs from the draft in its attribution of incidents at Dongyang/Yiwu in mainland China. The draft (which I quoted) said, “overseas Local Church leaders sent two representatives to Dongyang...to set up a local congregation there...” In contrast the published version (you quote) says, “TSPM leaders sent two representatives to Dongyang to set up a local chapter. However, Dongyang’s Christians did not welcome their arrival. Shortly thereafter, the TSPM representatives incited local cadres to violently break up various Christian meetings.”

I admit this difference escaped my notice. I thank you for pointing this out, and I stand corrected. This is the only substantive contribution of you post here. I would firstly ask: what are we to make of this discrepancy? Clearly, there are two competing accounts of events in China which (reportedly) served as a catalyst for the Chinese government’s crackdown of the “Shouters” sect associated with Witness Lee.

Zimmerman-Liu & Wright’s draft indicates that they were aware of reports that “overseas Local Church leaders [who] sent two representatives to Dongyang...to set up a local congregation...” Moreover, they attribute these reports to “the account of LSM leaders.” What did the LSM leaders tell the authors? Did the authors’ misunderstand? Did LSM’s leader misspeak? Presumably there is an audio recording somewhere of Teresa Zimmerman-Liu’s interviews with (unnamed) LSM’s leaders which might resolve this issue. I don’t have access to those recordings, if they still exist.

Secondly, I ask—what difference does the details of the Dongyang/Yiwu incident make? The overall facts are (as far as I know) not in dispute. As I wrote, Zimmerman-Liu/Wright state that after Chairman Mao’s death, “members of Local Church congregations outside China traveled to the mainland to seek out congregations that had gone underground during the Mao Era.” As a result of these efforts, “Local Church membership expanded quickly and dramatically, particularly in [China’s] inland areas.” Moreover, Zimmerman-Liu/Wright report that “Academics, church leaders, and CCP [China’s Communist Party] documents all agree that by 1983, the Chinese government was alarmed at the rapid growth & influence of the Local Churches throughout China.” So the [Chinese] government commissioned a “document [which] drew heavily on ...The God-Men & The Mind Benders. Using this critical report as its justification, the CCP branded the Local Churches/Shouters as a ‘cult.’ Indeed, the Local Churches head the list of ‘seven cults identified in [Government] the documents...” Here T. Zimmerman-Liu/Wright state unequivocally that, in China, “Local Churches,” are called “Shouters” by critics.

The net result of all this is that in China the “Local Churches,” are called “Shouters” and head the Government list of banned “evil cults.” This conclusion is independent of the details of the Dongyang/Yiwu incident which you seem so concerned with establishing. I’m afraid that you have “lost sight of the forest by being preoccupied with the trees.”

3. Wikipedia

You refer to Wikipedia’s entry on “The Shouters” and the Dongyang/Yiwu incidents. However, Wikipedia’s vulnerability to manipulation renders it unaccepted as arbiter on such issues. Wikipedia’s own disclaimer states “nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. … The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.” For these reasons, I wrote, “This Wikipedia entry [on the Shouters] appears to suffer the problem of multiple, conflicting entries on a controversial issue and the lack of ‘quality control’.”

4. “Straining the Gnat, but Swallowing the Camel” (Mt. 23:24)

Dear “Unregistered Guest,” I am disappointed that you focussed exclusively on an historical event that occurred in China in 1983. Your laser focus on the Dongyang/Yiwu incident means you have addressed only 2% of my article and left the overwhelming majority—98%--unaddressed. I’m afraid that you have “strain out the gnat,” but have left “the Camel”—the more substantive issues. Those issues, related to China, include [1] Have LSM’s Local Churches in China been wrongly identified as “the Shouters”? [2] Are there any connections or linkages (formal or informal) between LSM’s Local Churches & “the Shouters”? [3] Is there any basis for claims that Witness Lee is (was) the head of the “Shouters”? [4] Were there any actions or behaviours by “the Shouters” which might have precipitated the Chinese Government’s labelling then an “evil cult”?

Rather than answer these questions one-by-one, allow me a brief response.

1. First (as pointed out by a contributor to this Forum) Witness Lee, himself acknowledged the existence of “the Shouters” in China. Rather than disassociating himself & LSM from “the Shouters,” he appraised their home meetings. W. Lee said: “Today in mainland China, Satan hates the churches that meet in the homes. These churches comprise more than 50 million believers. The authorities condemn the ‘shouters,’ who are predominantly those who meet in the homes...” [W. Lee, Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Bk. 1, Ch. 10, Sect. 2]
2. Second, in a scholarly monograph “Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China,” published by Yale University Press in 2010, Dr. Lian Xi, Professor of History at Hanover College, traces developments from Watchman Nee’s “Little Flock” congregations in China to Witness Lee’s Local Church movement in Taiwan, N. America and China, referring to the practice of “calling on the Lord” or “Shouting.” Professor Lian Xi writes:

“A significant evolution of the Little Flock occurred while Nee was still alive but locked away in a labor camp. It began in Taiwan, under the leadership of Li Changshou [Witness Lee], one of Nee’s former lieutenants....After the late 1960s, Li took the Local Church (the Little Flock’s preferred self-designation) down a new path—in quest of what he called ‘the release of the spirit’ by way of ‘shouting.’ His followers later became known as the Shouters (Huhanpai).” [Lian Xi, Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China, Yale University Press (2010) p. 216]

“In 1962, Li [W. Lee] made a permanent move from Taiwan to Los Angeles, where he eventually established the Living Stream Ministry to oversee dozens of Little Flock congregations in a few U.S. cities. With a total of only about 5,000 in North America by the 1970s, Li’s scattered, though animated, congregations faced almost certain oblivion.” [Lian Xi, Redeemed by Fire, p. 217]

He further observes: “The ‘opening’ of China...lifted the Shouters of Southern California and their kin in Taiwan out of anonymity. As early as 1979, their evangels began to join the throngs of overseas Chinese and other foreign tourists who crossed into the mainland from Hong Kong. The bagfuls of Bibles and Shouters’ tracts (as well as occasional stacks of cash) that Li Changshou’s (aka Witness Lee’s) messengers brought were limited in amount. However, in the early 1980s, they represented spiritual, and material, fortunes to those underground church leaders who linked up with the overseas brethren. After Nee’s death, Li enjoyed an unrivaled privilege among the sect’s followers in China. As a result his doctrines struck fire almost overnight in underground congregations that were already disillusioned with the TSPM’s perceived adulterations of the Christian faith. In both the southeastern coastal provinces and the rural hinterland of Henan—two separate strongholds ...the Shouters built their major bases of operation. There was obvious buoyancy and vigor in the movement: the magic of ‘shouting’ was simple and easily acquired...In many rural Little Flock congregations in coastal China, ‘shouting’ broke out daily from 3:00 AM to 5:00 AM and resumed in the evenings...” [Lian Xi, Redeemed by Fire, p. 217] The last statements ought to remind readers of “calling on the Lord” in the 1970s.

Concerning events that might have precipitated the Government’s crackdown, Dr. Lian Xi writes: “In incidents in Zhejiang that recalled the Red Guards of the Cultural revolution, Li’s devotees armed with ‘big character posters’ stormed official churches, denounced the TSPM as the ‘great whore’ and pledged themselves to a battle with ‘the powers.’ ...The crackdown on the group as a ‘heretical cult’ (xiejiao) came in 1983 when, according to the government, the Shouters had already built a following of more than 200,000 ‘deluded people’ in 20 provinces....Two decades after it was outlawed, the Shouters sect reportedly grew to include 500,000 followers.” [Lian Xi, Redeemed by Fire, p. 218]

Rather than dismissing these accounts as implausible, readers ought to remember “embarrassing incidents” in N. America, like the disruption of “Founder’s Week” at Moody Bible Institute & the Church in Chicago’s march around MBI with cries of “Down with Babylon.” Recall the “Young Galileans” movement in Boston & NE USA. Plus think of the 1977 Berkeley conference (led by LSM soon-to-be ‘Blended Brothers’) and Max Rappaport’s simultaneous 1977 Chicago conference, both replete with scenes of anarchy & chaos. Against the backdrop of such incidents in the Lord’s Recovery in the US, the events reported in China don’t appear so implausible. The difference is that in the US freedom of speech & expression is upheld; China is a different story.

Dear “Unregistered Guest,” we might not like the tone of Dr. Lian Xi’s writing, however, most people & groups don’t get the luxury of writing their own history. Overlooking Prof. Lian Xi’s cynical tone, he provides a plausible account of the origin of the “Shouters” epithet attached to Witness Lee’s Local Church in China.

In a detailed review this book, Dr. G. Wright Doyle, editor of the Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity, observed, “My guess is that Redeemed by Fire will provoke not a little consternation among Local Church leaders in the U.S., who have recently succeeded in having the label of ‘cult’ withdrawn by leading evangelical spokesmen. If Lian [Xi] is accurate, however, the ‘Shouters’ designation as a cult by the Chinese government might have some merit – a possibility that will be angrily denied by Li Changshou’s [W. Lee’s] disciples, who have not been shy about taking critics to court, claiming that this label will cause needless suffering to their brothers and sisters in China.” [Dr. G. Wright Doyle, Review of Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China, by Lian Xi, Global China Center, August 3, 2010.]

Please allow me to reiterate a major point of my article: It is disingenuous of LSM, DCP or other LSM-affiliates, to assert that “Living Stream Ministry and the...local churches it supports...have no connection or linkage, formally or informally, to...‘The Shouters’.” [DCP Contendingforthefaith 21 Dec 2012] LSM might wish (for obvious reasons) to disassociate itself from the “Eastern Lightning” and the ‘All Mighty God Sect’. However, to claim that LSM and its Local Churches have “no connection or linkage” even “informally, to...‘The Shouters’,” is patently false. The correlation between Witness Lee’s Local Churches & the “Shouters” in China might not be perfect (100%) but it is high enough to render this assertion by LSM/DCP dishonest & deceitful.

Numerous accounts by reputable China observers link Witness Lee & the Local Church with “the Shouters.” A recent DCP statement (June 10, 2014) observes that “reports in [China’s] official government news outlets identified Witness Lee as the head of ‘the Shouters’...” Do LSM & DCP also dispute that claim? Almost a decade ago, Tony Lambert observed that “The first cult to make nationwide impact in China were the ‘Shouters’ in the early 1980s. An offshoot of the biblically-based ‘Little Flock’ founded by Watchman Nee in the 1930s, the ‘Shouters’ looked for inspiration to Witness Lee, Watchman Nee’s chief lieutenant…” [Tony Lambert, China’s Christian Millions, Monarch Books, Oxford (2006) p. 122 (emphasis added)].

The “bottom line” of all this is that the “cult” label and the “Shouters” epithet have been firmly attached to the Local Churches in China associated with Witness Lee, Living Stream Ministry, Taiwan Gospel Book Room and their various affiliates. For 30+ years the “Shouters” affiliated with W. Lee & the Local Church have been on the Government list of banned evil cults; that’s not likely to change any time soon. Scholars Zimmerman-Liu & Wright conclude that the ‘cult’ label will remain affixed to Witness Lee’s Local Church in both North America & mainland China for the foreseeable future.

Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, CANADA,
September, 2015.



---------------------------------------