Gretchen Passantino, Answers in Action

[UntoHim]

As Posted At:
http://www.answers.org/news/article....70223165418855

© Copyright 2007 by Gretchen Passantino

After 3 years of careful research, dialog, examination, & theological analysis, veteran apologist Gretchen Passantino, co-founder & director of Answers In Action (AIA), in conjunction with colleagues Hank Hanegraaff (president) & Elliot Miller (Editor-In-Chief of the Christian Research Journal.), of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) have concluded that the churches affiliated with the teachings of Watchman Nee & >Witness Lee & with the Living Stream Ministry (LSM) embrace & teach orthodox Christian theology, are a Christian movement of brothers & sisters in Christ, & should not be labeled theologically heretical nor as a "cult," even if the use of the term "cult" is restricted to a purely theological use as is defined in the late Dr. Walter Martin's The New Cults or in the late Robert Passantino & Gretchen Passantino's Answers to the Cultist at Your Door.

The re-evaluation comes more than 2 decades after their initial research & is far more commendatory than the initial observations made by the Passantinos & Martin. Although the Passantinos & Martin originally said the movement was not a non-Christian cult, & that at best Nee & especially Lee's writings were contradictory, they were strongly critical of the movement's theology as they understood it from examination of published materials. Although neither the Passantinos nor Martin wrote on the movement subsequent to 1981, for many years CRI offered a fact sheet on the movement that repeated the main criticisms from the Passantinos & Martin.

More than 3 years ago, Gretchen Passantino (who has directed AIA since her husband's death in 2003), Hank Hanegraaff (who has directed CRI since Martin's death in 1989), & Elliot Miller (who has edited the Journal since its inception), responded positively to a request by Living Stream Ministry, the publishing support for the movement, to begin a dialog & re-evaluation of its teachings & theology.

In the years since the initial critiques, the Passantinos, Miller, & Hanegraaff had increasingly appreciated the importance of understanding what people mean by their words through direct dialog, observation, & interaction, not merely or even sometimes best through their published words. Both CRI & AIA in recent years adopted policies mandating direct interaction with controversial individuals & groups as a pre-requisite to formal published criticisms. Passantino explains, "Our ground-breaking work in such areas as satanism & neo-paganism, as well as concurrent work with others in apologetics on the Worldwide Church of God and other movements & issues reinforced this principle & made us very open to re-evaluate this movement, whose written materials had always been problematic & open to divergent analysis among apologists."

Over the past 3 years, CRI & AIA have had unlimited access to the local churches’ written materials, hundreds of hours of direct dialog with leadership, and unrestricted access to rank-and-file members. CRI & AIA have also devoted hundreds of hours to theological analysis & research, including consultation with leading theologians & bible scholars from multiple graduate institutions. "Not only do we have a far better, more comprehensive understanding of the beliefs of the movement,” noted Passantino, “we also see clearly how our criticisms, even though they were among the mildest from the apologetics community, misunderstood & misrepresented its core of orthodoxy."

In the 1970s and early 1980s the Passantinos (in 2 small booklets) characterized Lee's teachings as at best contradictory & at worst heretical, & along with Martin (in The New Cults) strongly criticized their theology while stating they were not a non-Christian cult. Other researchers beginning in the 1970s branded the movement a cult & warned of psychological, sociological, & criminal errors attributed to the movement as well as charges of theological heresy. As recently as 1999 authors John Ankerberg & John Weldon included the movement among groups that were dangerous, destructive, & criminal in their behavior as well as heretical in their theology in their Encyclopedia of Cults & New Religions.

Since the movement had its origins & a strong contingent of believers in mainland China, the atheistic communist Chinese government made use of the negative reports as partial justification for criminal charges & convictions against Chinese Christians associated with the movement. The egregious charges made in Ankerberg & Weldon's book, echoing those made in earlier decades (such as in The God-men by Neil T. Duddy) have been seen by the movement as extremely dangerous for its members in mainland China, who continue to face government restriction, charges, & convictions for their church work. As part of countering this threat, key local church teachers (they reject a formal leadership hierarchy but obviously defer to certain members as especially important resources for leadership & teaching) approached a variety of apologetics leaders seeking dialog & reassessment. AIA & CRI welcomed the opportunity & joined together to pursue the process .

In recent years the churches & LSM have made progress in receiving recognition in wider Christian circles in America. Fuller Seminary conducted a similar dialog & examination to that of AIA & CRI & concluded, “the teachings and practices of the local churches and its members represent the genuine, historical, biblical Christian faith in every essential aspect” (Fuller Statement). LSM was accepted into full voting membership in the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA).

In dialog with local church leaders & LSM, they & AIA & CRI agreed that the initial strongly critical evaluations of the earlier decades by the Passantinos & Martins were due to a combination of factors that did not include deliberate misrepresentation or sinful intention on either side. Rather, the inadequate criticisms had much more to do with factors such as the lack of direct interchange; the cultural, linguistic, & ecclesiological differences between Christianity in China & America; & the relatively immature status of analytical religious analysis on both sides.

“A good example,” Passantino offered, “is the similarities between some of Nee & Lee’s teachings & those of some of the early church fathers & some expressions of eastern orthodoxy today.” She continued, “Neither Nee nor Lee claimed that their teachings about personal sanctifying transformation came from a familiarity with or adoption of the patristic or eastern orthodox teachings of theosis. With the comprehensive knowledge I had in the 1970s about heretical teachings on the subject from western aberrational groups, it was far more likely that I would identify Nee & Lee’s teachings with those rather than with patristic & eastern orthodox theology with which I was far less conversant.”

Revisiting the controversial teachings after a hiatus of more than 2 decades, AIA & CRI were able to more fairly evaluate the pertinent passages in their wider context & in complementary comparison with a wider body of orthodox theology. “We concluded,” Passantino said, “that one of the reasons we repeatedly encountered what we thought of as contradictions in Nee & Lee’s teachings so long ago, was that they really did not mean the heretical view, but meant to be understood as well within orthodoxy.” Direct dialog was key to unlocking the conundrum. Passantino, Hanegraaff, & Miller knew after their first meeting that these representatives were their fellow Christians. “As they affirmed orthodox theology, rejected heresy, & explained to us their theology,” Passantino offered, “I knew direct interchange was essential to fairly evaluate them.”

AIA & CRI affirm that the essential doctrines of Nee, Lee, the local churches, & LSM are fully within orthodoxy. AIA & CRI are fully aware that there are a number of secondary teachings & practices that distinguish them from many American evangelical Christian churches.

AIA & CRI will publish their analysis of local church teachings in the Christian Research Journal later this year. A lengthy doctrinal exposition published by LSM, A Statement Concerning the Teachings of the Local Churches & Living Stream Ministries in Response to Dialog with Fuller Seminary clearly shows the central doctrinal orthodoxy of the churches while also acknowledging & explaining those peripheral teachings that are the most troublesome to other Christians.

[UntoHim]

FOREWORD

It is with great pleasure that I add this foreword to Gretchen Passantino’s excellent evaluation of a Christian movement known as the Local Churches (the local churches). Gretchen is the quintessential example of a brilliant yet humble servant of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. She is emblematic of a new breed of apologists more interested in attracting converts to the Almighty than attracting people to their arguments.

The local churches are a classic case in point. Gretchen and her husband Bob did an initial evaluation of the movement in the mid-1970s. For reasons outlined in this document, that evaluation was incomplete and therefore deficient. Unfortunately it has become the basis for much of the criticism leveled against the work of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee globally. Indeed, it formed the backdrop for the ministry statements I inherited when I assumed the presidency of the Christian Research Institute (CRI).

As president of CRI and host of the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast, I have personally been asked to weigh in on the controversies surrounding the local churches and their publishing and distribution arm Living Stream Ministry. As such, I initiated a primary research project that included interaction with their publications as well as interaction with programs and people associated with their churches and Living Stream Ministry. I asked Gretchen Passantino, who has been and continues to be a trusted colleague, as well as Elliot Miller, editor-in-chief of the Christian Research Journal, to join me in this process. While this primary research is still ongoing, the following statements are beyond dispute.

First, the local churches are not a cult from a theological perspective. In this sense, a cult may be defined as a pseudo-Christian organization that claims to be Christian but compromises, confuses, and contradicts essential Christian doctrine. While I personally have profound differences with the movement when it comes to secondary issues, such as the timing of the tribulation or the meaning of the millennium, I stand shoulder to shoulder with the local churches when it comes to the essentials that define biblical orthodoxy. With respect to the Trinity, for example, we are united in the reality that there is one God revealed in three persons who are eternally distinct. Although we may disagree on the exegesis of particular passages, this premise is inviolate. It is significant to note that in interacting with members of the local churches over a protracted period of time, I have witnessed in them a keen interest in doctrinal precision sadly missing today in major segments of the evangelical community.

Furthermore, the local churches are not a cult from a sociological perspective. In this sense, a cult is a religious or semi-religious sect whose followers are controlled by strong leadership in virtually every dimension of their lives. Devotees characteristically manifest a displaced loyalty for the “guru” and the group and are galvanized together through physical and/or psychological intimidation tactics. It is more than unfortunate that the local churches have been uncharitably lumped together with sociological cults involved in the most heinous activities conceivable. It is truly tragic that this classification has been used to persecute and imprison members of the local churches in various regions around the world.

Finally, the local churches are an authentic expression of New Testament Christianity. Moreover, as a group forged in the cauldron of persecution, it has much to offer Western Christianity. In this respect three things immediately come to mind. First is their practice of prophesying—not in the sense of foretelling the future but in the 1 Corinthians 14 sense of exhorting, edifying, encouraging, educating, equipping, and explicating Scripture. In such a practice, constituents are corporately involved in worship through the Word. Second is their practice of pray-reading (in addition to Bible study) as a meaningful link between the intake of Scripture and efficacious communion with God in prayer. And third is their fervent commitment to the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). If the early Christian church had one distinguishing characteristic, it was their passion to communicate the love, joy, and peace that only Jesus Christ can bring to the human heart. As we become entrenched in an age of esotericism, it is essential that genuine believers in all walks of life emulate this passion—a passion I have personally witnessed as I shared in fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ from local churches in places as far away as London, England, Seoul, Korea, and Nanjing, China. In sum, along with Christians from a broad range of persuasions, the local churches are dedicated to both proper doctrine (orthodoxy) and proper practice (orthopraxy). As such, they march by the maxim, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” While we will no doubt continue to debate secondary issues this side of the veil, I have no doubt that we will spend an eternity together growing in the knowledge of the One who saved us by faith alone, through grace alone, on account of Christ alone.

Hank Hanegraaff
President, Christian Research Institute
September 2008

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

THE LOCAL CHURCHES:
A GENUINE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT
© 2008 by Gretchen Passantino, Answers in Action

Challenging Spiritual Options on Campus
I remember my undergraduate university days as a time of enthusiastic activism toward changing the world. I was an energetic leader in the American collegial turmoil of the late 1960s, early 1970s, as dedicated to defending my progressive European history professor from loss of tenure as I was to protesting corporate expansion in the nearby natural wetlands.

The daughter of a dedicated old-school newspaper journalist,I was committed to the precept that if I didn’t like the world around me, I should do something to change it.

When I surrendered my life to Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, my entire world was turned upside down. The same zeal I had used to explore the personal angst of James Joyce or to march on the dean’s office demonstrating, I now threw unreservedly into my newfound Christian faith. I was fully convinced that in the few remaining months before the rapture of the Church and the coming of the great tribulation and the Anti-Christ, I and my fellow “Jesus freaks” would “do something” to change the world for Jesus Christ.

It was no wonder my parents were concerned that I had “gone off the deep end.” They didn’t know whether to thank God I had such strong faith or to be afraid that I had become spiritually reckless.

Credentials for Testing Spiritual Movements
That was nearly 40 years ago and it took some time before my parents became convinced that my spiritual zeal represented authentic Christian conversion. My enthusiastic faith activism was the nexus which prompted me to dedicate my life to Christian apologetics, the work of discerning true and false spiritual movements compared to the standard of authentic biblical Christian faith. Over the last 37 years I have become one of the leading Christian evangelical apologists determining whether spiritual movements that claim to represent biblical Christianity are orthodox or heretical. My professional studies certainly endured far into my career and, indeed, continue to this day. But it was the early days of my Christian walk, when I first abandoned myself to Jesus Christ, that most prepared me to understand and empathize with young adults of any decade who are spiritually transformed and dedicate their young lives to spiritual service,often to the confusion and consternation of their parents.

If you are a young person who is experiencing your own spiritual epiphany, let me encourage you that your spiritual life will be enriched and enhanced as you join yourself to a true work of God, whether that is with the brothers and sisters of the local churches or in some other fellowship where God is working. God really is interested in capturing your heart for his service and he really will empower you to make your world a better place through Jesus Christ. If you are a parent, proud of your young adult offspring’s seemingly overnight spiritualblossoming, but afraid that he or she is going to crash and burn in spiritual chaos, let me reassure you. The local churches are a legitimate, theologically orthodox, spiritually faithful involvement by means of which your offspring can develop genuine Christian commitment and maturity. They are not adangerous ensnarement of the devil.

Why Young Christians Offend Nearly Everyone
When I was a new Christian on the campus of the University of California (Irvine) in 1970, my fervent Christian enthusiasm was hard for most people to take. I just knew Jesus was real, and everyone else should experience what I was experiencing. My friends thought I had gone crazy. I prayed in tongues instead of using drugs or drinking. I read the Bible instead of going to movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey. I invited my friends to church instead of to test lab alcohol binges in Upper Newport Bay.

My parents thought I had gone off the deep end. They had nothing against Christian faith, as long as it was quiet, discrete, inoffensive, and Methodist. They weren’t ready for my total rejection of “dead, dry denominationalism.” They were hurt when I told them I had experienced God in a ratty “revival tent” instead of in the modern, well-upholstered pews of a suburban church. They feared for my life and my future when I announced that God might call me to sacrifice my life for Jesus on the mission field in far off Africa or Asia.

My professors were profoundly disappointed that one of their brightest, most articulate young scholars had thrown her mind away on hysterical religion, the “opiate of the people.” When I challenged my "Bible as Literature" professor for equal time to argue the historical accuracy of the Bible, he was incredulous. My sociology professor couldn’t figure out how to explain cultural relativity to me when I kept asking him if he were certain there are no certainties, if he really knew it was true that truth can’t be known, if he weren’t a hypocrite to say “all beliefs are true,” except for my radical Christian faith that insisted Jesus was the only way, truth, and life. In short, when my heart was captured by Jesus Christ, I upset nearly everyone in my world. I am no stranger to disruptive-seeming faith.

Religious Diversity among American Youth
I became a Christian in 1970, at the beginning of a time of nearly unprecedented religious fervor among American young people. From the late 1960s through the early 1980s, American teenagers and young adults enthusiastically embraced a wide variety of spectacular spiritual movements. Some were decidedly orthodox in their Christian teachings and practices. The Navigators, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Evangelism Explosion were some of the movements that harnessed the enthusiastic faith of young people with a minimum of shock or discomfort to parents and denominational pastors and leaders.

Others were more radical, harnessing some of the same passion of the hippies and anti-war protestors in the name of Jesus. The Calvary Chapel movement, Jews for Jesus, and the many nondenominational, untitled Christian “Jesus Freaks” carried the same essential biblical message, but their behavior, vocabulary, and practices were radical and divisive for their times.

Many of the most radical spiritual movements were decidedly un-Christian, whether openly or surreptitiously. The Children of God claimed to be fully Christian but their prophet, “Moses David” Berg, taught and practiced moral depravity in the name of Christ. Rev. Sun Myung Moon came from Korea claiming to be the “Lord of the Second Advent” sent by God to finish the salvation work Jesus failed to complete. Jim Jones moved his People’s Temple to South America and led them into slaughter with his own suicide and the suicide and/or murder of more than 900 of his followers. The more blatantly non-Christian movements like the Hare Krishnas brought the gods of the East to the Western world and made us comfortable with terms like reincarnation and karma.

Equipped for Spiritual Discernment
In this exciting milieu of spiritual challenge my Christian faith matured and I embarked on a career path that paired my voracious thirst for knowledge with my deep devotion to Christian truth. My undergraduate degree in comparative literature gave me a unique introduction to a wide variety of religious worldviews and spiritual experiences stretching around the world and across five thousand years of civilization. My subsequent studies in theology, doctrine, world religions, church history, apologetics, and other theological disciplines gave me a breadth of scholarly insight into varieties of religious experiences. Working with one of the pioneers of cult apologists, the late Dr. Walter Martin, gave me invaluable experience in both equipping Christians to defend the Christian faith and evangelizing those who embraced other faiths.

With my first husband, Bob Passantino (who died late in 2003), I dedicated my adult life to the field of apologetics. What set Bob and me apart from many apologists of those decades was a product of our early years as enthusiastic campus Christians: we spent most of our time and effort interacting with people from the perspective of their own faith commitments rather than mostly distant academic observation. We tried to give the “strange” movements the benefit of the doubt. We drew the line at the essential Christian doctrines that defined biblical belief rather than the non-essentials that distinguished Christians within the wider unified faith. We applied what my late husband called “the golden rule apologetic”—don’t hold your doctrinal opponent to a standard you cannot meet, or challenge those who differ with you on grounds on which you could not stand.

Over the years we became trusted as well-reasoned, empathetic, accurate, theologically conservative Christian apologists. When we provoked critical responses, they arose from our refusal to acquiesce to popular but inaccurate mischaracterizations of others. Sometimes they arose because we saw developing trends or threats to Christian faith that others discounted. Even as we became more experienced and better educated, we maintained the same commitment to exacting research and careful analysis that exemplified the work of Walter Martin.

Re-assessing an Early Evaluation
Because of our careful work, our evaluations were rarely overturned. But when we recognized that we had failed to make a valid deduction, or further investigation changed the situation, we readily modified our assessment.

The most significant re-assessment from my career concerns the teachings and practices of a movement of Christians with its origins in China popularly described as the local churches, founded under the teachings of the two Christians from China, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. In the mid-1970s, we concluded that some of the teachings and practices of the leaders and their movement were heretical and we warned people not to become involved with the American manifestation of this move-ment. While some of our colleagues went so far as to say that the group was actually a non-Christian cult masquerading as a Christian movement, we stopped short of that denouncement.

This was primarily because we were convinced through personal interaction with some of the American members that these were genuine Christians who had genuine relationships with Jesus Christ, but who seemed at least confused about some essential teachings and practices.

Now, more than 30 years after our first limited investigation between 1975 and 1980, I have had the opportunity to conduct an entirely new, thorough re-investigation and re-assessment of the teachings and practices of the local churches, including the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. I have had full access to all of the printed and recorded materials of the movement. I have had full access to any members, whether neophyte converts or leading brothers who have served the local churches for decades. I have conducted careful, thorough research for many months. I am convinced that I have a much better, more accurate, better informed basis from which to conclude that this movement is a Christian movement whose teachings and practices are well within Christian orthodoxy. Rather than classifying them among the same kinds of movements that were false manifestations of Christian faith, such as Jim Jones’s Peoples’ Temple, they should be classified among the orthodox but startlingly vibrant churches like those coming out of the “Jesus Movement.”

I am among a handful of Christian apologists or theologians who have spent sufficient time with a breadth of primary documentation and at least as importantly had lengthy direct interaction with leading members and others in this movement. I am confident that my current assessment is supported by the evidence. I stand confidently with Dr. Richard Mouw, Dr. Howard Loewen, and Dr. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, all of Fuller Theological Seminary, and with Hank Hannegraaff and Elliot Miller of the Christian Research Institute in affirming the Christian orthodoxy of the local churches.

Other apologetics colleagues continue to insist that the teachings and practices of the local churches are heretical and outside Christian orthodoxy. Surprisingly, they base their insistence on the very same incomplete work Bob and I produced between 1975 and 1980, despite the fact that I can demonstrate the insufficiency in breadth, depth, and analysis of that former research base. My current assessment should carry much greater weight than did that first endeavor. Unless and until any of my dissenting colleagues are willing to engage in the much larger body of documentation—enhanced by a much deeper application of the study of the wider Christian church not only in its diversity around the world, but also in its diversity through the centuries, and augmented by a much greater number of personal interactions and direct conversations with leading and ordinary members—their continuing denunciation is untenable.

Orthodox Theology and Doctrine
The theology and doctrine of the local churches was generally unknown when the first missionaries from China came to the United States. These Chinese Christians brought the same gospel back to the United States as originally had been brought to them in previous generations, but it was presented in terminology and concepts that were comfortable for them, but that seemed strange to most American Christians.

As also affirmed by Fuller Theological Seminary the teachings of Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the local churches affirm the essential doctrinal positions of the historic Christian Church regarding the nature of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature, person, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the atonement, the nature of humans before and after the fall, the plan of salvation (redemption), the nature of the church, the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, and Christ’s bodily, visible Second Coming for final judgment and the reconciliation of all things. Not only are these teachings fully within orthodoxy, they are more carefully explained and contrasted to heretical beliefs than they are in most American Christian churches. Most local church believers in America understand and can explain essential biblical doctrine better than can most traditional American Christians.


Orthodox Christian Living
The practices of the local churches at first glance may seem to be aberrant. Most startling is the insistence that their churches take no name except for a geographical designator (the church in Anaheim, for example) and that no individual member or worker among the churches nationally or internationally has any greater authority or power than anyone else. How is it possible, the cynic might wonder, that with no authority structure, all of the churches seem so similar not merely in doctrine but also in practice? How can it be that there is an international publishing organization that also provides for conferences and ministry events from “leading brothers,” and yet no one is “in charge”?

The local churches attribute the Holy Spirit as the source of this unity. Some of the “leading brothers” freely admit that their experience, age, years of co-working with Witness Lee before his death, and the logistic ability to network with the churches internationally, pose an administrative system of a sort.

Careful inquiry and observation has convinced me that the independent administration of each church is actual, not illusory, and that the “leadership” has earned its ability to be followed by humble service, not by subtle control.

Distinctive Theology and Practices that Prompt Concern
If the local churches movement were just like any other American church experience, the controversy and accusations against them would probably not have arisen. That they have generated controversy in many of the communities in which they have planted congregations indicates they are different from many more mainstream Christian churches.

A careful comparison of local church theology to historical biblical theology shows that the biggest differences are differences of expression and experience rather than actual content.

Church Life
Church life in the local churches is primarily distinguished from typical American evangelicalism because of the local churches’ attempts to experience church as they think it was in the New Testament, before the rise of denominationalism or other congregational distinctives. That is why they refuse to name their churches or erect a national or international authority structure. They believe that a biblical description of “the church” in any given locality is merely “the church”—not the Baptist Church and the Lutheran Church and the Community Church, etc. They believe that the church in any given locality includes all Christian believers in that area, regardless of whether all the believers meet together or recognize their unity above their denominational or name distinctions. Although they have been accused of believing that only those who meet with them are true Christians, that is not their belief and it is not what they practice.

Another aspect of the local churches’ attempts to live New Testament church life is their enthusiastic commitment to worship and fellowship throughout the week, not just once a week. Local church congregations model their activities on examples from the New Testament of Christians who shared their assets (although the local churches are not communal), provided social assistance to their needy members, practiced discipleship of younger members by mature members, dedicated themselves to intensive study of Scripture, and cooperated in preaching the gospel throughout the community. To many American evangelicals, this intensive, time-consuming commitment is at best challenging to Christians who don’t do as much, and at worst indicates an unhealthy isolation from the wider community. Nevertheless, the local churches carefully and specifically encourage their members to be fully involved in a biblical way with respect to their families, the direction of their lives, other Christian believers, their local community, and their nation.

Church Worship
Local church worship is derived from their understanding of worship in the New Testament, and looks more like the “primitive” worship of the nineteenth century Plymouth Brethren background which the Chinese local churches first emulated, than it does contemporary American evangelical denominational or community based churches. Because they do not have a clergy/laity authority structure, services are very plain, have components contributed by a variety of brothers and sisters worshipping together, and typically have more prayer, simple hymn singing, and vocal worship than formal orders of service or pastor-directed sermons. Their version of communal prayer combined with Scripture (called pray-reading) has been misconstrued as mindless babbling by outsiders, although participants are instead seeking to internalize the objective truth of Scripture in a subjective experience of the Holy Spirit applying it to them as they worship together.

Even though the local churches hold similar end times views as many American evangelicals (dispensational premillennialism), their commitment to evangelism and discipleship is woven through their end times views. This means they persist in maturing in Christ in anticipation of His Second Coming as a bridegroom for his pure bride. This also means they urgently penetrate the society around them with the power of the gospel preparatory to what they see as the imminent closing of the “gospel age.” For many American evangelicals such intensity in daily discipleship and evangelism is unusual.

This is only a brief survey of some of the teachings and practices of the local churches. The publications of Living Stream Ministry provide specific descriptions of local church teachings and practices and, together with the actual practices of those churches, persuasive evidence that the teachings and practices of the local churches are orthodox, not heretical.

From Critic to Endorser
I changed from a critic of the local churches in the 1970s to an endorser in the twenty-first century for several significant reasons. The five reasons most significant for this brief survey are these.

First, as much as the “Jesus Freak” Christianity many of us embraced in the late 1960s, early 1970s, was startlingly different from the “dead denominationalism” of my parents’ generation, it was still a product of American rational modernism. Facts, arguments, evidence, and reason reigned supreme not only in the science lab and university classroom, but even in the theologian’s study and the church’s missions department. Confronted with a religious movement that embraced subjective spiritual experience along with objective rational argumentation, Bob and I failed to fairly evaluate the breadth of local church beliefs. Instead we essentially ignored whatever was not Aristotelean, criticizing an incomplete conceptual model of their theology. Through careful study of church history, especially ancient and eastern church history, I have come to understand and appreciate a less purely analytical but more fully personal theology such as is demonstrated in the ancient near eastern theology of the early church fathers or the eastern orthodox theology of the Byzantine churches.

Second, since the enthusiastic young American converts to the local churches pointed directly from themselves to the New Testament churches, our initial analysis failed to give proper weight to the historical roots of the local churches in China, especially in the mission efforts of the Brethren Churches. For example, without its historical context, it was easy for young converts as well as young critics like Bob and me to take their self-identity as “the church in XX (city)” as exclusive rejection of all other Christians and churches.

Third, the amount of material available to the public in English at that time was inadequate to fully and fairly represent the depth and breadth of local church theology. Even those messages given in English by Witness Lee in America came from a Chinese national who had spent most of his life and ministry in China among those who shared his cultural, historical, social, and spiritual experiences. The main theological statements of Nee and Lee came in the context of Bible studies and training sessions for believers who already embraced the distinctive understandings of the churches, not in the context of answering outsiders’ questions or defending themselves from critics. With this very limited research base, it is understandable that Bob and I concluded that comments by members like “I experience Christ as the Spirit” meant that the believer was confusing the persons of the Trinity and was guilty of the heresy of modalism. In fact, since this has been such a contentious issue between the churches and their critics, it has become the case that most brothers and sisters in the local churches are much better able to define, explain, and defend the orthodox doctrine of the trinity in distinction from modalism than the average Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or non-denominational Christians!

Fourth, as with my early conversion experiences and those of many other new and enthusiastic believers, many of the earliest American believers who aligned themselves with the local churches failed to temper their zeal with irenic compassion toward believers outside their movement. Just as my parents assumed I was rejecting them and their faith by my exuberant declaration that “dead denominationalism” was being replaced by God’s new movement of the Spirit, so did many assume that this import from Asia sought to supplant and exclude other American churches. When Witness Lee preached that “Christendom,” including Roman Catholicism and the churches of the Reformation, was “fallen” and “that the Lord was recovering” a purer practice of church life distinguished only by local proximity, both outside critics and even some members interpreted this to mean that the local churches saw themselves as the only genuine Christians. Subsequent clarifications of respected leadership and correction of immature local church members have demonstrated that while the local churches are adamant about refusing to distinguish themselves by anything other than local proximity, they recognize valid Christian faith among Christians in all of the orthodox denominational churches.

Fifth, the beginnings of the local churches in America were consumed with a positive and simple declaration of the faith its Chinese believers had embraced and practiced and brought to America with insufficient consideration for different culture, terminology, history, experience, and relationship. Consequently, over time the churches had to learn to explain themselves more fully to outsiders, taking into consideration problems and assumptions they had not previously encountered.

This can be compared to the experience of the early Christian church. In the beginning in Jerusalem, nearly all the new believers in Jesus as the Messiah were Jewish residents of Israel. To say “Jesus the Messiah is Lord!” conveyed a rich complex of theology, history, experience, and culture in terminology that encompassed 2,000 years of spiritual history. As the church was planted by the Holy Spirit in new places with converts of different religious experience, culture, history, and theological terminology, those simple statements had to be explained, defended, and contrasted to other beliefs. Within 500 years, the simple Christian declaration had expanded to the nearly 1,000 words of the Athanasian Creed. The theology had not changed, the wording had. In the same way, the uncontested, experiencedeveloped theology of the local churches, as they gained visibility in America in the 1970s, has now, more than 30 years later, been more fully, carefully, and contextually explained and defended in subsequent local churches literature. There are many more reasons that I, colleagues from Fuller Theological Seminary, Hank Hanegraaff, and Elliot Miller were compelled to assess our evaluation of the teachings and practices of the local churches and to affirm that our brothers and sisters in this movement are fully orthodox in Christian faith and life. The reasons summarized here should reassure concerned observers of the local churches’ Christian commitment.

A Christian believer who joins the local churches will find sound theology, enriching worship, challenging discipleship, and enthusiastic evangelism opportunities. After 40 years of Christian faith, I have not lost my “first love” of Jesus Christ. I recognize that same vibrant Spirit in the local churches.

About the Author
Gretchen Passantino is co-founder and director of Answers In Action, one of the oldest and most respected apologetics organizations. She holds a B.A. in comparative literature from the University of California (Irvine) and an M.Div. (apologetics emphasis) from Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary (Tacoma, WA). She is a respected author of books and articles on apologetics, world religions, and theology. She serves as an adjunct graduate faculty member with Faith Seminary. Gretchen Passantino co-authored The New Cults (1980) with Dr. Walter Martin that contains an appendix on the local churches with her previous research conclusions. She contributes to a multi-part reevaluation of local churches’ teachings and practices for The Christian Research Journal (forthcoming).

[aron]

From Hank Hanegraaff, CRI: "It is with great pleasure that I add this foreword to Gretchen Passantino’s excellent evaluation of a Christian movement known as the Local Churches (the local churches). Gretchen is the quintessential example of a brilliant yet humble servant of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. She is emblematic of a new breed of apologists more interested in attracting converts to the Almighty than attracting people to their arguments"

I don't know what the relationship is between Hanegraaff and Passantino. But I suspect it is not unbiased. He is "puffing" her up. If you get a recommendation from an outside party, it should be someone objective, not your close co-worker. Are the words "Brilliant", "Excellent", and "Humble" trustworthy evaluations from a third party? If he has a vested interest in her success, his words amount to a scam.

From G. Passantino: "My enthusiastic faith activism was the nexus which prompted me to dedicate my life to Christian apologetics, the work of discerning true and false spiritual movements compared to the standard of authentic biblical Christian faith. Over the last 37 years I have become one of the leading Christian evangelical apologists determining whether spiritual movements that claim to represent biblical Christianity are orthodox or heretical."

A)If Passantino is indeed one of the leading Christian evangelical apologists, she should let someone else say it. It looks bad, like "I am the boss here". Yes, in your own mind you are, indeed!

B) How do we determine who the leaders among this community are? If we want to determine NFL rushing leaders or NBA scoring leaders it is easy, but self-proclaimed "leaders" in the christian community is hard to judge. The only thing I can discern here is that this person has an inflated ego.

The rest of her argument may be good, and sound. But she kinda lost me at "I'm one of the leaders here"...Any good scholar lets the facts speak for themselves. The poor scholars waste ink telling you how good they are. It is a big red flag that you are not, in fact dealing with one of the "leaders", but with a wanna-be.

[aron]

I did a brief look-up on the web and it seems that Passantino and Hanegraaff have financial ties. Thus, H's foreword is a scam. His recommendation is based on some other connection than seeing the truth be presented.

These people are posing as scholars. But I don't trust them. They have some motivation for success which impinges upon their ability to rightly discern what is going on around them.

Of course, we all are biased. I am, as well. But number one, I am not pretending to be unbiased, and number two, I am not selling my opinion for money. Lawyers do that. Give a lawyer enough money and he'll stand in front of a judge and say how "excellent", and "brilliant", and "humble" you are.

Having said that, the rest of Passantino's writing is the usual apologetics/exegesis stuff, not noteworthy pro- or con. But they lost me right out of the gate when they (she & Hanegraaff) puff themselves up to be "something".

I wonder how much money LSM gave these folks to be their PR flacks? If the answer is "none", I would be heartened. But given the actors here, on both sides, I suspect the relationship is greased by something more than a simple respect for the truth.

[UntoHim]

This is a test of the opening thread

[OBW]

aron,

I must say that your comments are insightful.

But the thing that caught my eye was your byline. I haven't looked to see if it is recently changed or if I have just missed it, but my general thought is that freedom is never free — at least not within human society. Freedom is one of the most costly things. The state of the majority of the current world suggests that keeping people in some kind of bondage is easy, and spreading that bondage is also easy. It is quite costly to obtain and defend freedom.

It would be wonderful if the freedom we have in Christ were as easy to obtain in human society.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by OBW

It would be wonderful if the freedom we have in Christ were as easy to obtain in human society.

Yup. I'd even be pleased if the freedom we have in Christ were as easy to maintain in Christian society...

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

... the thing that caught my eye was your byline. I haven't looked to see if it is recently changed or if I have just missed it, but my general thought is that freedom is never free — at least not within human society. Freedom is one of the most costly things. The state of the majority of the current world suggests that keeping people in some kind of bondage is easy, and spreading that bondage is also easy. It is quite costly to obtain and defend freedom.

It would be wonderful if the freedom we have in Christ were as easy to obtain in human society.

OBW,

I agree with your points. Even if you have "freedom", to some degree, it is maintained only by constant vigilance. But I was taking a stand largely outside of the "human society" you refer to. My quote was inspired by my (admittedly shallow) ruminations on a line from Paul's epistle to the Galatians, chapter 5 verse 1, "For freedom Christ has set us free; let us stand fast therefore and not be entangled again in the yoke of slavery." The Galatian believers had been set free from sin by faith in the Lord Jesus, but they were now erecting self-made yokes of "law".

So I created a fictitious character, some crusty old retired military guy, grumbling over his sherry and newspaper, and had him toss out a quip. Just for fun, and to be mildly provocative. But that was the freedom I was thinking of when I made the quote.

"Freedom is free"...it is free intrinsically; it is free by definition. It has no debt, no price. It is freely given, freely available. It is beyond worth, beyond value. Isaiah 55:1 says, "everyone who is thirsty come to the waters...come without money and without price." It is without money and price because it has value beyond any capacity we could ever pay, and it is without money and price because it is freely available. It is beyond sale or purchase; it is free.

And of course the end of the Bible, Revelation 22:17 "...let him who is thirsty come, and let him who wills take the water of life freely"

This freedom that Paul presents to the Galatians, and now to us, does in some sense contain a very high price, and I speak not of the price Jesus Christ paid, but what we must do to obtain it. To obtain this freedom we must find it (not easy, to be sure), and when by grace we find it we must have the strength to stand fast, and not be lured by the enemy into accepting new yokes.

It is my impression (I was not there) that a great wind of freedom blew through the young people living in the U.S. in the late 60's and early 70's. Many of them later became entangled in the yoke of man's self-created religious slavery. They were captured, becoming objects displayed on a shelf in the museum of history. The yoke returned; once it was sin, now it is religion. God's enemy is described as the 'subtle one' not without reason.

Of course, I cannot say whether the freedom I have described actually exists, or even if it does whether I have or will ever approach it. I just feel that it is always calling, beckoning like those verses in Isaiah and John's Revelation are doing. Sometimes I think I am approaching it, or perhaps have even - gasp - laid hold, then it flutters away like a little bird at the clamorous approach of a madman (me). What a marvelous search! I can think of none other worth embarking upon.

Peace to you and thanks for your comments.

[UntoHim]

"In the meantime, however, Passantino Coburn would do well to desist
from asking us to trust her judgment in the matter.
Gretchen, we’re interested in your research, not your résumé."

As Posted At:
http://www.religiousresearcher.org/blog/?p=293

Testimonies Are Not Enough: CRI, Answers in Action, and the Local Churches

Posted by: Rob Bowman in apologetics

According to an article posted online two days ago at Christianity Today, “Two notable critics have changed their minds on the controversial ‘local churches’ movement that follow the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.” The two critics are Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute (CRI), and Gretchen Passantino Coburn, director of Answers in Action (AIA). The article refers to a booklet to which Hanegraaff and Passantino Coburn contributed and that the Defense and Confirmation Project, a pro-Local Churches group, published in November 2007. Entitled The Local Churches: “Genuine Believers and Fellow Members of the Body of Christ”, the booklet includes “Testimonies” (as the title page quite correctly calls them) from Hanegraaff, Passantino Coburn, and Fuller Theological Seminary. Fuller’s contribution is a statement representing the assessment of Richard Mouw, the school’s president, and two other Fuller professors.

I have been quite reluctant to enter the fray of this debate, which has actually been going on for several years, but have decided now to say something.

An Aside about Past Associations
Before I begin, in the interests of full disclosure, I should acknowledge that I have a past history with all three of these organizations (which will explain my reluctance). I graduated from Fuller Seminary with a Master’s in biblical studies and theology in 1981. Mouw was not the president at the time, and I have met him only once, when I talked with him later in his president’s office at the seminary. In 1984, I went to work at CRI under Walter Martin, and continued on staff after Martin’s passing and his succession by Hanegraaff in 1989. In January 1992, CRI terminated my employment, fraudulently claiming they were laying me off. (In truth, they got rid of me after I quietly protested Hanegraaff’s attempts to have me ghostwrite books for him.) Over the next several years, I participated in efforts to bring various accountability issues to the attention of CRI and its board, including playing a leading role in an ad hoc group of former employees and volunteers called the Group for CRI Accountability. In 1996, Gretchen Passantino (now Coburn, having remarried after the passing of her first husband in 2003) posted an article on the AIA web site (no longer there) that accused me, among others, of having made “false accusations” against Hanegraaff and of being a deceiver whom other Christians should avoid. The Passantinos never identified what these allegedly false accusations were and never retracted their statement (although they did eventually remove the offending web page). My last communication with both Hanegraaff and Passantino took place in June 2001, when I wrote letters to them (to which neither ever responded) regarding their public statements concerning D. James Kennedy and Hanegraaff’s plagiarism of Kennedy’s famous manual Evangelism Explosion. Those letters were also the last time I have written or said anything publicly concerning Hanegraaff and Passantino Coburn, until now.

None of this has anything to do with the Local Churches. However, if anyone is inclined to dismiss what I have to say here in an ad hominem fashion, there is plenty of grist for that mill.

Recent Events Concerning the Local Churches
The main point of the Christianity Today article (“Cult Watchers Reconsider: Former detractors of Nee and Lee now endorse ‘local churches’”) is that the November 2008 booklet marks a recent change in the view taken by Hanegraaff and Passantino Coburn of the Local Churches. It asserts that Hanegraaff and Passantino Coburn “each published their new support in a November booklet by the Defense and Confirmation Project, founded to rebut criticism of Nee and Lee.” However, the article’s claim that this is a new position is false. Two and a half years earlier, in August 2006, Hanegraaff filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the Local Churches in its failed attempt to sue Harvest House for $136 million over the inclusion of the Local Churches in its book The Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions. Gretchen Passantino also filed a letter to the court supporting Hanegraaff’s brief. Although the Christia

Numerous evangelical scholars and countercult ministry workers were appalled. In January 2007, over 60 such scholars and ministry leaders signed an “Open Letter” asking the Local Churches to demonstrate their theological orthodoxy by specifically retracting or disavowing various statements in the published writings of Witness Lee. The Open Letter also asked the Local Churches to agree to stop using litigation to silence theological criticism from Christian writers and publishers. The signatories to this letter included the presidents or deans of eight evangelical seminaries, IRR’s Luke Wilson, former CRI researchers Craig Hawkins and Paul Carden, other countercult scholars and leaders such as James Bjornstad and Don Veinot, and E. Calvin Beisner—another former CRI researcher who also happens to be Gretchen Passantino’s brother. The following month, in February 2007—almost two years ago—Passantino posted an article on her web site saying much the same thing as her testimony in the November 2008 booklet. The article, “Apologetics Conclusions Reconsidered . . . . A Case in Point: The Local Churches & Living Stream Ministry,” announced that Passantino and Hanegraaff had completed a three-year reassessment of the Local Churches and concluded they were theologically orthodox. Passantino neither acknowledged nor attempted to address any of the criticisms of her support for the Local Churches’ lawsuit or the issues raised in the Open Letter.

With this background in place, I want to offer a response to the DCP booklet, focusing on the contribution of Passantino Coburn. (All parenthetical page references are to this booklet.) Let me make clear that my focus here is not on the salvation, spiritual condition, or even the theological orthodoxy of the people in the Local Churches. I am responding to the “testimonies” of the authors as they appear in the booklet. I am quite open to new information and reasoned reassessments of old conclusions. Unfortunately, the testimonies of Hanegraaff and Passantino Coburn offered neither new information nor reasoned reassessments.

Should We Trust Passantino Coburn?
Hanegraaff’s piece is essentially, as he rightly calls it, a “preface” to the lengthy testimony of Gretchen Passantino Coburn. According to Hanegraaff, “Gretchen is the quintessential example of a brilliant yet humble servant of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (9). This is the sort of effusive praise of a fellow believer in Christ with which I am loathe to disagree publicly, no matter what the evidence. I could and ordinarily would simply let it pass, but Passantino Coburn herself insists on making her résumé and her personal story and values an issue.

Passantino Coburn devotes several pages to her own spiritual journey and credentials (13-18). She declares, “Over the last 37 years I have become one of the leading Christian evangelical apologists determining whether spiritual movements that claim to represent biblical Christianity are orthodox or heretical” (14). Speaking of her conversion to the Christian faith, she reports, “My professors were profoundly disappointed that one of their brightest, most articulate young scholars had thrown her mind away on hysterical religion” (15). Her career path in apologetics, she says, “paired my voracious thirst for knowledge with my deep devotion to Christian truth” (16). “Over the years,” she tells us, she and her first husband Bob “became trusted as well-reasoned, empathetic, accurate, theologically conservative Christian apologists” (17). In her concluding “About the Author” she claims that AIA is “one of the oldest and most respected apologetics organizations” and that she “is a respected author of books and articles on apologetics, world religions, and theology” (28).

Her lack of humility aside, Passantino Coburn’s point in offering these self-descriptions is to encourage the reader to trust her judgment on the question of the orthodoxy and soundness of the Local Churches. Ironically, this is precisely what a good apologist and trustworthy scholar never does. The job of an apologist and scholar is to present the facts, along with a reasoned interpretation of those facts, to support the conclusion. Our job is to share the evidence with others in such a way that they are equipped to reach that same conclusion, not based on our trustworthiness or integrity or years of experience or brilliance or devotion to truth, but based on their own perception of the evidence and their own grasp of the arguments. Apologists gain respect not by asserting their reliability or assuring us they are respected but by doing reliable work that deserves respect. When an apologist says, “Trust me,” that apologist has just lost the argument.

Passantino Coburn claims that she has performed a much more thorough, complete, and cogent assessment of the Local Churches than the one she and Bob Passantino did in the 1970s, and therefore that we should accept her current assessment in place of her earlier work:
“Other apologetics colleagues continue to insist that the teachings and practices of the local churches are heretical and outside Christian orthodoxy. Surprisingly, they base their insistence on the very same incomplete work Bob and I produced between 1975 and 1980, despite the fact that I can demonstrate the insufficiency in breadth, depth, and analysis of that former research base. My current assessment should carry much greater weight than did that first endeavor. Unless and until any of my dissenting colleagues are willing to engage in the much larger body of documentation—enhanced by a much deeper application of the study of the wider Christian church not only in its diversity around the world, but also in its diversity through the centuries, and augmented by a much greater number of personal interactions and direct conversations with leading and ordinary members—their continuing denunciation is untenable.”

The problem here is twofold. First, not everyone who thinks the Local Churches are heretical base their view on the Passantinos’ earlier work. At least some of the critics of the Local Churches have done their own research, reading primary sources and talking directly to members in the Local Churches.

Second, in reality Passantino Coburn is asking her readers to accept her current testimony over the evidence she had earlier documented. She asserts that she “can demonstrate the insufficiency in breadth, depth, and analysis of that former research base.” Unfortunately, up to now she has not offered any such demonstration. She also claims that her new assessment is based on a “much larger body of documentation,” but so far—two years after first announcing her reassessment—she has not presented any of this alleged documentation. In the case of the earlier work, the Passantinos backed up their conclusions regarding the Local Churches with a heavily documented analysis of the movement’s teachings from its primary sources. Their appendix “The Local Church of Witness Lee” in the book The New Cults (by Walter Martin with Gretchen Passantino [Santa Ana, CA: Vision House, 1980], 379-406) contained quotation after quotation from Witness Lee and other Local Church publications to document the assessment offered there. Although the number of citations does not tell the whole story (quality of selection and interpretation is at least as important as quantity), it is worth observing that the 1980 appendix contained 56 endnotes, 43 of which referred to Living Stream publications. The body of the appendix included well over a hundred sentences of direct quotations from Living Streams publications that the reader could read for himself and from which he could reach an informed opinion as to the soundness of the Passantinos’ critical assessment of the Local Churches’ teachings. By contrast, Passantino Coburn’s 16-page testimony in the 2008 DCP booklet contains not a single sentence from any Living Stream publication, not a single sentence from Witness Lee, and not a single footnote, endnote, or other citation. In place of such documented evidence, she merely asks readers to trust her new assessment.

In her concluding “About the Author,” Passantino Coburn states that she is contributing to a forthcoming “multi-part reevaluation of local churches’ teachings and practices for The Christian Research Journal” (28). Apparently this reevaluation has been in the works for some time. In her February 2007 web article announcing her new assessment of the Local Churches as completely orthodox, she had likewise referred to such a forthcoming article: “AIA & CRI will publish their analysis of local church teachings in the Christian Research Journal later this year.” Two years later, the article has yet to appear. If and when it does, evangelical apologists should carefully and fairly consider whatever substantive arguments the publication presents for its reassessment of the Local Churches. In the meantime, however, Passantino Coburn would do well to desist from asking us to trust her judgment in the matter. Gretchen, we’re interested in your research, not your résumé.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by aron

I wonder how much money LSM gave these folks to be their PR flacks? If the answer is "none", I would be heartened. But given the actors here, on both sides, I suspect the relationship is greased by something more than a simple respect for the truth.

...When I went to short-term in Anaheim last April, the ministry staff was talking about having spent time with Hank in Taiwan, and Indonesia.

Apparently Hank's son (and Hank himself) also went to the summer training at the FTTA this past year. Atleast, that is what I heard from some of the saints who came back from it: I cannot testify to this myself.

Anyone else catch Hank's offer of a free copy of Watchman Nee's "The Normal Christian Life" (Living Stream Ministries copy of it) on his radio show and website?

[UntoHim]

I seriously doubt if Hank or his son attended an entire training. (and if they did, did they have to pony up for the $?) Seriously, even if they did it's a day late and a dollar short as far as I'm concerned. The damage is already done. He and CRI have fully "endorsed" The Local Church lock, stock and barrel.

If Hank et al were worth their salt they would have spent some of their supposed "six year extensive research" demanding unfettered access to every unedited LSM video. You know, all those messages that contain what Witness Lee really taught. What he really said. This assumes that the video's have not already been chopped up. Also, we know that Hank et al never bothered to interview any former members. This is inexcusable, that is if he really wanted to be taken seriously by the Christian public. But hey, this is just another reason why Hank and CRI are not taken seriously by the great majority of the Christian public - they no longer hold to the high standards of research and objectiveness established by Dr. Walter Martin.

[TLFisher]

Somehow this article by CRI has been overlooked....

News Watch
by William M. Alnor
A column from the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1988, page 5.
The Editor of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.

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

Turmoil in the Local Church
The "local church" movement may be experiencing its most severe crisis since it was imported to America from China in the early 1960s. Led by Witness Lee, former co-worker with the popular Watchman Nee (d. 1972), the movement has often experienced controversy and conflict with other Christian groups. But a growing dissatisfaction with the practices of Lee and his son Phillip Lee has given rise to unprecedented dissent within the movement, from Taiwan, to Europe, to America.

A 20-page pamphlet, Reconsideration of the Vision, has helped to fan the flames of dissent. Since its January 1988 publication in Chinese (since translated into English), much has happened in the movement. The pamphlet, anonymously published and widely circulated to many local church congregations in Taiwan and the US, alleges that a "Mr. X," identified by people close to the church as Witness Lee, has engaged in questionable business practices, and states that he "arranged to have his eldest son as president" of a firm that went bankrupt. "Many saints were pressured to give their life savings to this business." When the firm went bankrupt, Lee asked one of his co-workers to persuade the investors "to consider the investment as a donation and not seek to be reimbursed," it states. "Many were stumbled at this and left the churches, and others who continued to demand reimbursement were ignored by Mr. X."

It also suggests that "Mr. X" may no longer be a"true apostle," and calls for the "saints" in the local churches to obey the Scriptures, not man. It accuses "Mr. X" of departing from the teachings of the Bible, as well as those of Watchman Nee. For example, it accuses him of teaching that every age is only allowed to have one spiritual leader -- with himself being that leader for today. It also questions "Mr. X's" behavior in several areas, accusing him of being "puffed up," of not disciplining his seriously erring "second son" (identified by former church members as Phillip Lee), of improperly insulting co-workers and elders, and of seeking to replace older and more spiritually mature leaders who might call him to accountability with "arrogant" but loyal younger followers.

The "local church" teaches that there should only be one church in each city, and that the movement spearheaded by Witness Lee is God's last-days "recovery" of the church which will precede Christ's second coming. The church's teachings on such doctrines as God, Christ, man, and the church have been called into question by many Christian authors, including Walter Martinand the Christian Research Institute (The New Cults, 1980). (Martin does not accuse them of being a non-Christian cult, however.) Lee has used the courts to remove at least two books critical of him from publication, including The God-Men (1981), by Neil T. Duddy and the SCP (i.e., the Spiritual Counterfeits Project in Berkeley, California).

Referring to opposing books that were written against the sect, the pamphlet Reconsideration of the Vision states: "Although they did not state the truth in its entirety, many of their observations regarding Mr. X were accurate and not fabricated from their imaginations. Due to the fact that the points in question were deleted from the written publications of Mr. X's ministry, verifications cannot be made. However, numerous cassettes and videos bear witness to the observations of the so-called opposers. During the lawsuit [against SCP] the saints were warned and pressured to keep silent, and many voluntarily kept silent for the sake of the Lord's Recovery. On some occasions when outsiders sought to interview saints, only special ones were selected who were 'safe' to be interviewed."

The effects of the controversy have been far-reaching. Former elder Robert Smith says that several congregations around the world have doubts about their continuing association with the Living Stream Ministry office (the publishing and ministry arm of the worldwide movement, which is run by Phillip Lee and which represents the authority of Witness Lee). At least one congregation, The Church in Rosemead (California), has broken ties altogether.

The extent of disaffection varies widely. Some are not yet willing to abandon Lee, but they do believe he has erred in some respects and needs to be restored. Others believe Lee has erred in practice to such an extent that he should no longer be personally followed; and yet they continue to adhere to his doctrines and call for a reformation within "the Lord's Recovery." Still others have broken with Lee's teachings as well as his leadership. Many in this latter category are now attending churches outside of the movement. William Freeman, a former leader of the movement in America, has broken with The Church in Seattle, where he was an elder, and moved to Arizona. Freeman figured prominently in the legal action filed against the SCP. According to Smith, Freeman has suffered some disillusionment and is presently neither entirely in nor entirely out of the sect.

The Church in Anaheim, which for years had been the leading church in the movement (with Lee residing in that city), has been one of the churches hardest hit by the controversy. "We've obviously been having some difficulties," said John Ingals, a leading elder at the church. However, Ingals said the church has not achieved a complete break with Lee. He would not elaborate on many specific problems facing the congregation. According to a transcript of a meeting at the church on August 28, an elder told members that "we dissassociate ourselves from those practices and" conduct found in the Living Stream Ministry office, and that the office has "no authority over this church." Further, the elder said, "We do not want the elders of any other churches to be telling us what to do. I feel very sorry that we have let this kind of thing happen here in Anaheim."

Tapes of a stormy October 9 meeting at the same church reveal that the root of the church's grievance with Lee (as well as that of other churches, such as The Church in Stuttgart [West Germany]) is Lee's longterm failure to deal with the "sinful" behavior of his son Phillip. It is contended that "gross immorality" and other sins were committed by Phillip Lee over a ten-year period, with Witness Lee's knowledge, and that Lee and his co-workers tolerated and covered up this behavior. Not only this, dissenters maintain, Lee and his associates have more recently identified Phillip with Witness Lee's own ministry (as the one who would carry it on), and promoted him to a place of unofficial but effective authority over the churches. Phillip Lee was reportedly in Taiwan, and could not be reached for comment.

-- Elliot Miller and William M. Alnor