Author Archive: DCPPress

Misrepresentations on the Harvest House Corporate Web Site

Posted on by

Harvest House has been actively seeking to influence public opinion against Living Stream Ministry and the local churches by publishing out of context statements. This is an attempt to scandalize Christian readers against us and against our critique of today’s “Christianity.” For this reason, we feel obligated to make our position clear to all our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Divine Revelation in the Bible

As believers, we love the pure revelation in the Bible. The Bible reveals Christ as the unsearchably rich One (Eph. 3:8), the eternal God who became a man (John 1:1, 14; 1 Tim. 3:16)) to accomplish redemption (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7) that He could enter into us (Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 13:5) and become our life (Col. 3:4). The Bible also reveals the church as the Body of such a Christ to be His enlargement and corporate expression (Eph. 1:22-23; 1 Cor. 12:12-13).

Organized Christianity’s Shortcomings

However, what we see today in Christendom in the organized system of “Christianity” falls far short of this reality and is characterized instead by the mixing of many foreign elements into the pure divine revelation that is found in the Scriptures. These non-biblical elements change the normal Christian life from a daily enjoyment of Christ as life to creedalism and Christ-less religious duty. They deform the normal function and expression of the church from that of the Body of Christ to a mere organization of man, cheating God’s people of their function and damaging God’s testimony of oneness. Thus, our criticism is not of the Christian faith or of our fellow believers; our criticism is of the “anity” that has been added to Christ, the system of Christianity as it exists today.

The Bible records that Christ “loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25), not for any “ism,” whether “Judaism,” “Catholicism” or “Protestantism.” God did not save us for any “anity” or any “ism;” He saved us to be the Body of Christ. While concepts such as these are not universally held among believers today, neither are they entirely foreign. They certainly should not be foreign to those putting themselves forward as Christian scholars and Christian publishers.

However, despite the letters of protest that we sent to Harvest House Publishers, in its Web postings Harvest House still defends its “chapter on the teachings of The Local Church” claiming that it “quotes and documents those teachings accurately.” In addition, their postings include a number of additional, similarly miscast, quotes describing variously “Christianity,” “Christendom” and the “isms” as: “dead religion,” “apostate,” “deformed and degraded,” “a human religion saturated with demonic and satanic things,” “spiritual fornication,” etc. (see also “Harvest House’s Hypocrisy Concerning Our Criticism of Christianity“).

Our Biblical Critique of Organized Christianity

In each case, a reading of the entire publication would demonstrate a careful adherence to the Bible, church history and a long tradition of biblical exposition, as well an absolute distinction between our attitude toward the unbiblical system seen in today’s Christianity and our attitude toward fellow believers and the truths of the Christian faith. People are not condemned; an unscriptural system is.

Our criticism of this system runs along three lines:

  1. The replacement of Christ as the preeminent One in the believers’ lives, even as their very life, with so many substitutes;
  2. The paralyzing of the function of the members of the Body of Christ through the unscriptural clergy-laity system; and
  3. The division of the one, unique Body of Christ by the unscriptural system of denominationalism.

An examination of the out of context quotes used by Harvest House in its Web postings will show that in each case these were the issues being addressed. Because it takes considerably more space to present a matter properly than it does to sling mud, we will only cite a few examples:

1. “Christianity is not focused on the divine economy but is a human religion saturated with demonic and satanic things.”

The theme of the book from which this quote is taken is how we as believers should cooperate with God for the carrying out of His purpose, which in the Bible is called God’s economy (Gk., oikonomia, 1 Tim. 1:4). The same chapter says:

The prevailing concept in today’s Christianity is that preaching, teaching the Bible, and praying for others is the pastor’s job. A person goes to a pastor in the same way that he would go to an attorney or a doctor for specific services. This clergy-laity system annuls the functions of the members of Christ. The attendants in the so-called Christian services go there and do nothing. They do not know how to do anything. They only know how to sit there and watch a few others function. In the church life there should not be an annulling of others’ functions but a stirring up of everyone to function.1

Thus, our criticism of the organized system of Christianity relates to the clergy-laity system annulling the function of the members, thereby hindering the building up of the Body of Christ. Since the focus of God’s economy is the building up of the Body of Christ, it follows that in institutionalizing the clergy-laity system, Christianity is not focused on the accomplishment of God’s economy. Interestingly, these comments are very similar to those made by Harvest House author Dave Hunt:

Unfortunately, most of us are part-time Christians and full-time something else. As a result, we bring into the church many of the methods and ideas we have become accustomed to out in the world. We trust our physician or accountant, so we think it should work the same way in matters of religion: There must be some professional whom we should trust as the expert who understands the things of the Spirit which we don’t have the time or capacity to learn.

God will not tolerate such an approach. We cannot abdicate our moral responsibilities to someone else, no matter how godly, who will then do our Bible study and prayer and thinking for us. Christianity involves a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. 2

It is difficult to understand what is the real objection of Harvest House and its authors to criticism of the human religion built up by the clergy-laity system. In a Harvest House book, James McCarthy writes:

According to Scripture, all true Christians are members of the same priesthood. It is a “holy” and “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5, 9). There is no clergy/laity distinction in the New Testament.3

Even stronger statements can be found on John Ankerberg’s Web site:

Christ clearly indicates that the false dichotomy of clergy and laity is a practice of pagans.4

Whoever came up with the clergy and the laity completely perverted what the Word of God says. Every believer filled with the Spirit of God is in the ministry.5

Furthermore, the passage from which Harvest House extracted the one sentence they quote is speaking of the organized system of Christianity taking the place of the living person of Christ.

God does not want a religion, but He surely wants to see His economy accomplished. We are not here for religion but for God’s economy, which is to propagate His completed Christ to produce the church as the Body of such a Christ. Christianity is not focused on the divine economy but is a human religion saturated with demonic and satanic things. This natural, human, traditional, and cultural religion is full of organizations. Without organizations, Christianity could not survive. The Catholic Church and all the denominations depend upon organization. Although we do not like to have organization, sometimes the leading brothers in some of the localities brought in and trusted in their organization. We must realize that organization kills. We trust in the living Spirit. The church as the Body of Christ should be a divine organism full of the living Spirit.6

By stripping Witness Lee’s comments of their context, Harvest House avoids the substantive questions raised. Who can deny that today’s Christianity as a whole is characterized by organization, not the living Person of Christ? Who can deny that the clergy-laity system has had the overall effect of replacing the priesthood of all believers with a system relegating spiritual service to professionals?

2. “We must stay away from the practice of the deformed and degraded Christianity and come back to the divine revelation for the Lord’s recovery…. The traditional way of [church] meeting.builds up something satanic and demonic.”

Here Harvest House lapses into the despicable habit of eliding statements to obscure their substance. Such a practice is not considered ethical even among unbelievers. The two sentences quoted are actually extracted from two different paragraphs. Here is the full text of those two paragraphs:

My burden is to open up the real situation of today’s Christianity that we may know where we should go and where we should remain. We should stand for the testimony of Jesus in this age. We need to compare what is revealed in the Bible with what is practiced in today’s Christianity. We must stay away from the practice of the deformed and degraded Christianity and come back to the divine revelation for the Lord’s recovery. The preaching of the gospel and the teaching of the Bible do take place in Christianity. But in a larger sense, the religious practice of Christianity kills the living members of Christ and annuls the organic function of the members of the Body of Christ. This religious system also involves the building up of hierarchy.

We must come back purely to the God-ordained way to practice the New Testament economy so that God can operate in His Trinity to dispense His triune being into us that we may be filled and saturated with the divine being to become His very expression on this earth. This is what God wants today. Christianity has missed this, and God is recovering this in His recovery. The way to meet is not a small matter. The traditional way of meeting kills and annuls the functions of the members of the Body of Christ and builds up something satanic and demonic. We must come back to the biblical way, the new way, the living way, that affords God the opportunity to operate among His chosen people.7

The third sentence of the first paragraph clearly states what the yardstick is for measuring our Christian practice-the Bible. It is in comparison with the divine revelation in the Bible that the term degraded is applied to the system of today’s Christianity. Then Witness Lee explains what he means. It is degraded in that its practices kills the members of the Body of Christ and annuls their function.

In the following paragraph he explains further why that degradation is so serious. God desires to carry out the building up of the Body of Christ through His dispensing of Himself into His believers. The proper Christian meeting is one that nourishes this life and supplies the believers with the riches of Christ as life so that they may grow in Christ for the building up of His Body. If our meetings as Christians do not accomplish this, they in fact become a frustration to God in the accomplishment of His purpose. It is only when Christians meet in mutuality with Christ as their unique goal and center that God can operate freely to carry out His purpose. Anything short of this is a degradation that builds up something else, a system that is used by God’s enemy to frustrate His purpose. Again Harvest House has chosen not to address the issue raised, but to attempts to scandalize its readers with the terms “satanic and demonic.” For Harvest House’s own use of these terms, see “Harvest House’s Hypocrisy Concerning Our Criticism of Christianity.”

3. “We are still in a situation in which we need the Lord’s rescue, the Lord’s recovery. I am afraid that a number of us are still under the negative influence of Christendom. We all have to realize that today the Lord is going on and on to fully recover us and bring us out of Christendom.”

In order to understand the context of this statement, we need to consider two portions. On the preceding page Witness Lee says:

The Lord’s recovery is for bringing us out of this unscriptural system and back to the beginning of the pure practice of the church life according to the divine revelation. In this proper church life, there were no religion, no outward regulations, no rituals, and no vain doctrines or teachings. The saints were exercised to be in the spirit to enjoy Christ, to experience Christ, and to express and speak Christ in a corporate way.8

The subject, therefore, of Witness Lee’s speaking is the need to be recovered from an unscriptural system to practice the church according to the divine revelation of the Bible. Furthermore, he is speaking about the shortage among the believers in their experience of Christ as God’s unique gift to man (John 3:16). On the same page from which Harvest House excerpted the quote they used, Witness Lee says:

Nothing is as important or as strategic in the New Testament as the oneness of the believers. The Lord Jesus prayed that we all would be one (John 17:21). Some maintain that they want to be scriptural, but in their exercise to be scriptural, they divide the saints. Nothing is more unscriptural than to divide the saints.9

One of the unscriptural aspects of today’s Christendom is the divided condition of the Body of Christ. All genuine Christians subscribe to a core set of beliefs which constitute the faith, for which the New Testament says we must contend (Jude 3). However, the Lord would never approve of the multitudinous divisions of His Body over many minor doctrinal differences and teachings.

In context, in the portion that Harvest House quotes, Witness Lee is speaking about our need as believers to care for the one Body of Christ by being persons who are in the Spirit (Eph. 4:4).

Eventually, the entire Bible consummates with the Spirit and the bride (Rev. 22:17a). By God’s work throughout the ages, all the saints and the Spirit speak the same thing. All the many saints are one bride. Are we one bride today? In a sense we are, but we may still be holding on to our concepts and opinions that damage the one accord. We are still in a situation in which we need the Lord’s rescue, the Lord’s recovery. I am afraid that a number of us are still under the negative influence of Christendom. We all have to realize that today the Lord is going on and on to fully recover us and bring us fully out of Christendom. The Lord desires something fully in the spirit.

By omitting the context of Witness Lee’s exhortation to care for the Spirit and the Body, Harvest House distorts his meaning, opting for cheap shots instead of meaningful evaluation. Their approach leaves unanswered the critical question: Are these criticisms accurate or not? Is it true or not that as believers we need to be rescued from the unscriptural system that characterizes today’s Christendom? Is it true or not that we need to be brought back to Christ as the pre-eminent One in our lives, even as our very life? Is it true or not that the proper spiritual function in the priesthood of all believers needs to be recovered? Is it true or not that the division of the Body of Christ over so many petty disagreements and personal ambitions is a shameful condition among the Lord’s people?

Conclusion

We believe that the biblical examination of the issues of the preeminence of Christ in the lives of the believers, the recovery of the function of all the members of the Body of Christ, and the practice of the genuine oneness of the Body of Christ are issues that are worthy of our careful consideration and fellowship in the Body of Christ generally. We do not believe that our fellow believers are served by the divisive and misleading tactics Harvest House has resorted to in its Web postings.

Notes:

1 Witness Lee, The God-Ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), p. 30.

2 Dave Hunt, Beyond Seduction (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1987), p. 120.

3 John R. Waiss and James G. McCarthy, Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 137.

4 Greg Durel, “The Primacy of Peter,” https://www.jashow.org/articles/.

5 Wayne A. Barber, “The Unsung Heroes of the Faith-Ephesians 6:21-22,” https://www.jashow.org/articles/.

6 Witness Lee, The God-Ordained Way, p. 29.

7 Ibid., p. 35.

8 Witness Lee, The History of the Church and the Local Churches, third printing, 2003 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1991), p. 131.

9 Ibid., p. 132.

Response to the Accusation that the Local Churches are Litigious

Posted on by

Throughout the lawsuit, Defendants Harvest House Publishers, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon attempted to tar the local churches and Living Stream Ministry as “litigious” by making repeated comparisons to the Church of Scientology. In their brief to the Court of Appeals they stated:

The Local Churches also meet the public-figure criteria set forth in the Church of Scientology of California opinion. The Local Churches are notoriously litigious with a history of decades of legal actions and threats against those who criticize their publications, teachings, or leaders.

A Hollow Claim

We believe a few simple facts will show the hollowness of this claim.

The following is a breakdown of the participation of the Plaintiffs in litigation prior to the Harvest House action:

  • Living Stream Ministry had never been involved in a lawsuit.
  • Seventy-four of the plaintiff churches had never been involved in a lawsuit.
  • Nineteen of the plaintiff churches were involved as plaintiffs in The Mindbenders litigation.
  • One of the planitiff churches was involved in The God-Men litigation.
  • The Harvest House action was the first litigation filed by any of the plaintiff churches since the The God-Men case in 1980.
  • The Harvest House was only the third litigation initiated by any of the plaintiffs individually or collectively.

By contrast, according to the authors in the book at issue, the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR), “Scientology has filed hundreds of lawsuits against its critics.”1 A search of Westlaw performed in August 2004 turned up over 300 case citations involving Scientology, and these represent only those cases which have gone to higher courts on appeal.

All three of the litigations filed by the any of the plaintiffs have been related to the same source. The Mindbenders chapter and The God-Men were both developed from the same draft manuscript. John Weldon, the primary author of ECNR, worked with the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) during the time both the draft manuscript and The God-Men itself was written. He continued working with SCP while the litigation over that book was going on. He corresponded with the author of The God-Men and asked Neil Duddy to review his own manuscript on “The Local Church”.2 (view) The manuscripts that eventually became the basis for the present Encyclopedia were developed during that time. Even a cursory examination of John Weldon’s drafts of “The Local Church” chapter show that he relied heavily on The God-Men as a source. That source was thoroughly condemned as false and defamatory in the judge’s Statement of Decision in 1985.

Lawsuits Filed by Harvest House

During a 2006 radio broadcast Harvest House President Bob Hawkins, Jr., said, “We’ve never had any lawsuits in the past over the 32 years that we’ve been in business, so this was the very first one.”3 Actually, that is not true. Harvest House had filed at least six lawsuits against mostly small Christian bookstores over credit issues.

Location Defendant Status Date Amount
Harris County, TX Frank Fleener, individual, and DBA Good News Bible Bookstore 05/26/1977 $286.49
Harris County, TX Joseph W. Simpson, individual, and DBA New Life 04/16/1984 $789.08
Westchester County, NJ Earl D. Darling and Living Light Christian Bookstore 08/10/1988 $1658.00
Maryland District Court Great Christian Book, Inc. 09/20/1999 $8965.77
New Jersey Superior Court Barbara Cobb 04/26/2000 $311.23
State of California, San Bernardino County Castles Christian Book Center 10/01/2001 $2474.00

These lawsuits were purely pecuniary in nature, meaning they were all the type of lawsuit that Paul specifically condemned in 1 Cor. 6. In addition, Harvest House:

  • Sued the Church in Fullerton, Inc., prior to the present litigation.
  • Sued its own insurance company over a $2,000,000 policy to cover their expenses in the present litigation over ECNR.
  • Was sued by (and settled with) one of its employees for wrongful termination in a case that involved charges of tampering with that employee’s e-mail by Harvest House management.

This list is by no means exhaustive. It simply illustrates that the hypocritical smearing of the local churches as “litigious” by Harvest House, its authors, and its lawyers in their callous attempt to prejudice both the courts and the public demonstrates a willingness to substitute self-interest for truth.

Notes:

1John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1999), pp. XXVI-XXVII.

2Letter from Linda Duddy to John Weldon, March 4, 1981.

3Robert Hawkins, Jr., on “Point of View” broadcast, March 14, 2006.

Misrepresenting the Lawsuit and Our Objections to ECNR

Posted on by

Throughout the entire course of the litigation the Defendants consistently misrepresented both the nature of the case and of our objections to the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR). Specifically:

  1. They misrepresented the case as a theological dispute which falls outside the proper jurisdiction of the court system.
  2. They repeatedly and falsely stated that we did not object to the content of “The Local Church” chapter.
  3. They distorted the history of our protests concerning the false and defamatory statements made in ECNR.

All three of these efforts constitute a false witness to our fellow believers.

  1. The lawsuit was never a theological dispute but was always focused on the injury done to our reputation through ECNR‘s attribution of criminal and immoral behaviors.
  2. Beginning from early 2001 (Multiple links) of us and of our teachings in “The Local Church” chapter.
  3. The history of our protests and the lack of meaningful response from Harvest House, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon show a callous disregard for the damaging impact of their false representation of our churches and ministry.

Amicus Brief from Prominent Religion and Social Science Scholars (Texas Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Several prominent religious scholars in the fields of religious studies and the social sciences submitted an amicus brief calling on the Texas Supreme Court to review the Texas Court of Appeals ruling in The Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al. The brief argued that the appeals court decision failed to properly balance First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech against the social values underlying defamation law in ruling that wrongfully calling a group a cult was merely a matter of religious belief, when the book in question—Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions—attributed criminal and other evil behaviors to such groups. The brief was signed by:

  • Rodney Stark, Ph.D., Author, Co-Director, Institute for Studies of Religion and University Professor of the Social Sciences, Baylor University;
  • Derek H. Davis, J.D., Ph.D., Dean of the Graduate School at University of Mary Hardin-Baylor;
  • Edwin S. Gaustad, Ph.D., Author, Professor Emeritus of History and Religious Studies, University of California-Riverside; and
  • James M. Dunn, Ph.D., Author, Visiting Professor of Christianity and Public Policy at Wake Forest Divinity School, Former Executive Director of Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.
  • J. Gordon Melton, Ph.D., Founder and Director of Institute for the Study of American Religion, Santa Barbara, California;
  • H. Newton Malony, Ph.D., Author, Senior Professor of Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychology, at Fuller Theological Seminary;
  • Stuart A. Wright, Ph.D., Author, Professor of Sociology and Assistant Director for Research and Sponsored Programs Administration, Lamar University;
  • Rev. Jerry Smith, CEO of Latham Springs Baptist Encampment;
  • Ronald B. Flowers, Ph.D., Author, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Texas Christian University;
  • William L. Pitts, Ph.D., Author, Professor of History of Christianity and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Religion, Baylor University;
  • Mark G. Toulouse, Ph.D., Author, Professor of American Religious History at Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University;

Amicus Brief from Prominent Scholars (Texas Supreme Court)

Amicus Brief from Publishers and Broadcasters (Texas Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Seven men with extensive experience in the publishing and broadcasting industries submitted an amicus brief supporting the local churches’ request to the Texas Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision in The Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al. The brief said that granting review would allow the court to strike the right balance between First Amendment rights and “the right of religious organizations to be free of unsubstantiated denigration of their reputations.” It also argued that publishers of books on religion should be held to the same standards of defamation and that Christian and secular organizations should enjoy the same protections when falsely accused of criminal or abhorrent conduct.
The signers of the brief were:

Amicus Brief from Publishers and Broadcasters (Texas Supreme Court)

Amicus Brief re: International Impact (Texas Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Eight individuals submitted an amicus brief to the Texas Supreme Court attesting to the damaging effect of the Texas Court of Appeals decision in The Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al. The brief pointed out that the court’s decision to ignore the secular definition of the term cult, which was part of the operative definition used in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions would be potentially immensely damaging in parts of the world with repressive governments.
The brief was signed by:

PDF of Amicus Brief from International Experts (Texas Supreme Court)

Amicus Brief from Hank Hanegraaff (Texas Supreme Court)

Posted on by

Hank Hanegraaff, President of the Christian Research Institute, submitted a letter brief to the Texas Supreme Court, asking the justices to review and reverse the Court of Appeals decision in The Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al. Hanegraaff’s brief stated his own findings that the local churches are not a cult from either a sociological or theological perspective. He concluded:

Finally, to apply the sociologically charged and increasingly connotative wor “cult” to the Local Church can have dramatic and dangerous ramifications. This could be particularly harmful to any group, such as the Local Church, with large constituencies in religiously intolerant societies. The Texas Court of Appeals decision establishing a legal precedent protecting the use of the word “cult” would be potentially damaging to countless innocent Christians. Therefore, it should be reviewed and reversed by the Texas Supreme Court.

PDF of Amicus Brief from Hank Hanegraaff (Texas Supreme Court)

Petition for Review

Posted on by

This document is the official Petition for Review submitted by the local churches to the Texas Supreme Court as the first step in appealing to said Supreme Court—that they would review the case (Local Church, Living Stream Ministry, et al. v. Harvest House Publishers, et al.), which was previously overturned by the Texas Court of Appeals. It includes statements concerning the basic facts and concerns of the case.

Petition for Review

Five amicus briefs were submitted in support of the Petition for Review. These briefs were submitted by:

After the Texas Supreme Court declined to review the case, an additional amicus brief written by Dr. Rodney Smolla, Dean and George Allen Professor of Law and the University of Richmond School of Law and author of the two-volume set Law of Defamation, was submitted in support of a Motion for Rehearing.

Why Are We Continuing Our Legal Efforts?

Posted on by

Current Situation

We are grateful to the Lord for the warm fellowship which He has provided us with many Evangelical friends over the past five years. In particular we are very happy about the statement issued in January by Fuller Theological Seminary chronicling our two years of mutually edifying fellowship. The editors of Christianity Today have also shown Christian love and fairness in engaging in fellowship with us and we are thankful to the Lord for their honest opinion as well as their agreement with Fuller’s statement. The Evangelical Christian Publishers Association was the first to engage in dialogue with us in the process of our communication with other Evangelical publishers. There are numerous other Evangelical believers who heard us and took it as their own burden to straighten out the many misunderstandings of the past. It is not because we are unappreciative that we have decided we must continue this struggle. We hear your comments that now we have, in fact, “won the war” and therefore, do not need to continue this battle. In this we have endeavored very much to pray and to seek guidance from the Lord. While we are reminded of our duty for Christian charity, we are also cognizant of our responsibility to keep watch over the interest of God’s allotment to us (Acts 20:31; 1 Pet 5:2-3). We ask your indulgence while we try to help you understand our very difficult position and the danger and damages that have already resulted from the book itself (ECNR) and further problems that have arisen from the recent ruling of the Texas Court of Appeals.

In the days following the Texas decision we began to hear from the many house churches in China that follow our teaching and practices. We heard words of great concern for how they could prepare for the new wave of persecution to come “now that we are a ‘cult.'” A crucial point that some Evangelicals seem to miss is that there are many governments on this earth that understand the word “cult”, not as theology, but as a threat to their society and a justification for persecution. This week further information came to us from Zhejiang province that government officials have approached our brothers to tell them that through the internet they have learned that a Texas court has now labeled them a cult. It was a warning of things to come.

The Result of the “Friends of the Court”

Now, we would earnestly like to ask our Evangelical brothers how we should answer these cries for help. Must we tell them that a group of American Evangelicals collaborated together as “friends of the court” to convince a Texas court that the word “cult”, even when defined with criminal characteristics, could only be understood as a theological term and thus our libel claim was negated in favor of the expression of religious speech? How shall we explain that they persuaded the court to hold Christian publishers to a lower standard than secular publishers must uphold? Perhaps those well-meaning Evangelicals did not foresee that their efforts to enhance their own freedom would be at the expense of the freedom of many others around the world. Will those Evangelicals come forward now to explain to our brothers and sisters in distant lands that some of them will have to suffer imprisonment and torture because the freedom of American publishers is more important than their lives? Although we have suffered many damages in the United States, including broken homes, due to this book, it is comparatively easier for us to turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39) than it is for those who are affected in other parts of the world. We have suffered attacks and misunderstanding for thirty years in this land where we treasure the right of all religions to express their views freely. And while it is an insult to be portrayed as enemies of freedom of speech, yet insult and imprisonment are two different kinds of cheek to turn. We would willingly suffer that insult as we endeavor to spare other genuine believers from imprisonment. In the modern history of our ministry, our brothers, from Watchman Nee on, have demonstrated their willingness to be martyred for the Lord, but we feel a great responsibility not to add to the tribulation of their followers by being passive while American books and courts provide “justification” to their tormentors.

The Need for Righteous Consequences
To Lawless Acts

In addition, we believe in the rule of law in America and that there should be righteous consequences to lawless acts. ECNR was not an accident or mistake. It was not merely “loose talk” as some have described it. The authors, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, have been closely associated with those who attacked us in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Harvest House participated in selecting the groups in the book and made numerous decisions to keep us in the book. Furthermore, they and their authors have resisted every offer to meet face to face for more than five years. The evidence established in this case makes it abundantly clear that the book was published with reckless disregard for the truth.

Implications of Texas Court Ruling

Finally, we must point out that the decision of the Texas court adds bad law to the mix and will result in innumerable problems for us all. As a result of this decision, every writer who invokes a religious context is now free to make whatever evil allegation he wishes about whomever he wishes. This ruling destroys the proper legal protection for “the little guy” and empowers the already empowered to defame those with whom they may disagree. In this particular case the ruling protects the authors and publishers in spite of their making charges as serious as murder, rape, beating disciples and drug smuggling, all because they did it in a context including “religious speech”. In setting a frightening precedent, the ruling, as it now stands, protects the word “cult” as being, by law, impossible of having any meaning other than theological. This ruling ignores both common sense and the authors’ plainly written intention- which was to use the term “cult” for the secular meaning it has to those unconcerned with theology. Consequently, this ruling opens the doors for all manner of lawless attacks that will now be protected by law! The details of the main errors of this decision are expressed in our motion for rehearing.

So, we are determined to continue this fight with all the strength and endurance the Lord grants us. If we are considered somehow less than Christian for trying to protect other believers who are helpless, we are willing to suffer that. Our efforts to help the situation in China have not been limited to the present litigation. We have endeavored in many ways to address those issues. Fuller Theological Seminary among many other Evangelical groups has pursued similar goals. We are thankful for such efforts and hope more Evangelicals could show a similar love to those neighbors in Asia. We are open to anyone who has an alternate solution that would work to solve this worldwide problem. If other members of the Lord’s Body would do more, we would be happy to do less but they would first need to get into the facts of the case. As much as we have tried to explain the facts of this case, many do not yet understand that it is not about theology (see our Original Complaint). Meanwhile, we continue to seek the Lord, opening up ourselves to Him for His gracious shining, and we ask you for your prayer and support in these matters.

Motion for Rehearing

The motion for rehearing was filed with the same appeals court that recently ruled on this case. We are asking them to reconsider and reverse their errant ruling. If they decline to hear it, we then will take it to the Texas Supreme Court with a request for their review. We feel there are numerous issues of importance that should be of interest to them. If they choose not to hear it, we can then appeal to the US Supreme Court. If the case goes all the way up to the US Supreme Court and back to the lower court for trial, there could still be years of litigation ahead of us. It is altogether premature for Harvest House and the authors to claim victory at this point. Harvest House’s lead attorney has stated that they would take this case as high as necessary, even to the US Supreme Court. Why would we do less as we have much more at stake in the matter?

All of this confrontation could have been avoided if Harvest House and the authors had made a simple and principled decision to handle this as Christians as we have repeatedly asked them for more than five years. That offer has never been taken off the table.

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Court of Appeals Decision

Posted on by

See the Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing of the Court’s January 5, 2006 Judgment filed on February 16, 2006.

On January 5, 2006, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision denying summary judgment and ruled for the Defendants.

We believe the appeals court ruling is in error. This case is not about constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, but about the abuse of that precious freedom. Neither is this case about the content of our Christian teachings and theology, however maliciously both have been distorted by the book in question.

The Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions by John Ankerberg and John Weldon contains accusations of criminal and abhorrent behavior that are attributed to “cults,” the subject of their book. The book clearly states that they chose the word cult for its “contemporary force” and “particular value for secularists.” The recent court decision failed to recognize the clear language of the book. It also failed to take into account the testimony of the authors and publisher that the book’s Introduction could be understood by readers as applying to the Local Church.

This matter has already been decided in our favor three times in the trial court by two different judges. We will seek a rehearing by the Court of Appeals and are ready to appeal this decision to the Texas Supreme Court. We believe the Court of Appeals decision will be reversed based on the facts of the case and the law. We remain steadfast in our commitment to establishing the truth and protecting from defamatory accusations the legacy of a godly Christian ministry and the reputations of countless Christian churches and believers.

Prelude to Conflict

Posted on by

Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF), the New Covenant Apostolic Order (NCAO), Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) & the Local Churches

Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, Campus Crusade, and the Church

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the ministry of Watchman Nee exerted a powerful influence among seeking Christians in the West. His classic book The Normal Christian Life became immensely popular after it was published in English in Mumbai, India, in 1957. Then in 1962 his book on the practice of the church according to the New Testament was published in America as The Normal Christian Church Life. Shortly after its publication, his closest co-worker, Witness Lee, immigrated to the United States and began ministering there. For the remainder of the decade Witness Lee labored in Los Angeles to build up a pattern of the church life. He also traveled throughout the United States to visit seekers eager to know Christ in a deeper way and to have a church life that matched the New Testament and Watchman Nee’s ministry.

A group of Campus Crusade for Christ leaders was among those deeply affected by The Normal Christian Church Life. This group included Jon Braun, national field coordinator; Peter Gillquist, northern (Big Ten) regional coordinator; Richard (Dick) Ballew, eastern regional coordinator; Gordon Walker, director of the Africa program; Ken Berven, director of the Canada program; and Ray Nethery, director of the Asia program. Throughout the 1960s these men grew increasingly frustrated that, although their work brought many to believe in Christ, they failed on the whole to lead students into a sustainable Christian life beyond their college years.1

A crucial turning point in 1967 was the “Berkeley blitz,” in which 600 Crusade staff and students spent a week evangelizing the University of California at Berkeley, the seedbed of campus radicalism. Of the blitz Peter Gillquist said, “Though hundreds of kids ‘prayed the prayer’ and committed their lives to the Lord, we know of only two that really followed through.”2 Gillquist wrote of discussions the Crusade staff members had their annual summer staff training:

“Why aren’t we the Church?” we would ask. “Here in the New Testament, the only thing Jesus ever started was the Church.” We loved what we were doing, but in the Book of Acts it was Church, not parachurch.3

This stirring had its roots in what they had read in The Normal Christian Church Life.

The Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF)

After the Berkeley blitz and a similar effort and result at UCLA,4 two things happened. First, Braun and his colleagues left Campus Crusade after Braun and some of them failed to persuade Crusade president Bill Bright to convert the parachurch organization into a church.5 Second, in another attempt to reach the radical subculture at the University of California at Berkeley, Campus Crusade for Christ sponsored a pilot experiment in 1969 which came to be called the Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF). Jack Sparks, a former statistics professor and Crusade staff member, quickly became its leader. The CWLF tried to project an image of radical Christianity, frequently repackaging the rhetoric and tactics of the radical subculture around a Christian message. Sparks grew a beard and long hair, dressed in overalls, and became known as “Daddy Jack.” CWLF marched, picketed, and disrupted meetings of campus groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society. They glued slogans to the windows of a counterculture newspaper and varnished over them so that they could not be removed without breaking the windows.6

Jack Sparks

Sparks (upper-left) & the CWLF

The Church in Berkeley

Another group of young Christians was also trying to reach students at UC Berkeley. These believers had been inspired by the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee to practice the oneness of the Body of Christ on the ground of oneness as the church in Berkeley and to pursue knowing Christ as their life. At one time the headquarters of the CWLF was directly across the street from the meeting place of the church in Berkeley. As the Vietnam War waned and the counterculture became less prominent, CWLF found itself eclipsed on the Berkeley scene by young people who were zealous for the gospel of Christ but who eschewed the counterculture trappings and lawless behaviors of the CWLF. When some members of the CWLF left to join the church in Berkeley, Jack Sparks denounced Witness Lee as a “wolf” and attacked the local churches as a cult.7 He reached out to Jon Braun, whom he had known while he was on staff at Campus Crusade. Braun was embittered after the rancorous breakup in 1971 of a group he had met with in Isla Vista, California.8 The group was led by Gene Edwards, an ambitious person who plagiarized Witness Lee’s ministry and passed it off as his own.9 Braun sent Sparks a tape recording in which he excoriated Witness Lee. Sparks used Braun’s criticisms in talks to CWLF members. These criticisms were also published and distributed.

New Covenant Apostolic Order (NCAO)

Sparks and his former colleagues at Campus Crusade—Braun, Gillquist, Ballew, Walker, Berven, and Nethery—began meeting together regularly in 1973 to plot a new course. In June of 1975, CWLF split apart when Sparks sought to assert his authority as an “apostle” and convert CWLF into a church with strong elements of Eastern Orthodox practice. In November of that year the seven men formed the New Covenant Apostolic Order (NCAO) and declared themselves to be its apostles.10 Sparks and five of the other NCAO leaders increasingly adopted a unique blend of evangelicalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the authoritarian practices associated with the Shepherding movement. In January 1978, when Nethery refused to go along with their direction, he was ex-communicated from the group and anathematized.11

Seven former Campus Crusade for Christ leaders of the early sixties meet in 1974 to form the New Covenant Apostolic Order, the core group that pursued Orthodox Christianity.
Left to right: Richard Ballew, Gordon Walker, Jon Braun, Ray Nethery, Jack Sparks, Ken Berven, and Peter Gillquist.

(Photo by Fr. Marc Dunaway.)

Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP)

CWLF functioned as a loose amalgam of “ministries.” By the early 1970s CWLF ministries included an underground newspaper, a free “university,” a street theater troupe, and several communal houses. In 1974 three CWLF members—Brooks Alexander, David Fetcho, and Bill Squires—formed the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) with the express intent of exposing religious movements originating in the Far East. Alexander and Fetcho had roots in both eastern mystical religions and drug use but converted to Christianity. SCP quickly rose to prominence in the evangelical world as Alexander and Squires along with Michael Woodruff, an attorney who maintained a close relationship with SCP that spanned ten years, aided the plaintiffs in a lawsuit to keep Transcendental Meditation out of public schools in New Jersey.12 The SCP leaders uncritically accepted the accusations of Braun and Sparks toward Witness Lee and the local churches. Although SCP came to reject the direction Braun and Sparks took and accused them of authoritarianism,13 SCP staff members never reassessed what Braun and Sparks had sown into them concerning either Witness Lee or the local churches.

SCP Staff

Alan Wallerstedt’s Monograph

Shortly before CWLF’s demise, Sparks commissioned a young protégé named Alan Wallerstedt to draft a monograph attacking the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches. When CWLF disbanded, the remaining parts, including SCP, formed the Berkeley Christian Coalition (BCC). Wallerstedt was one of the few who stayed with BCC yet met with Grace Catholic Church, an NCAO group Sparks founded. Wallerstedt completed his monograph in May of 1976. The manuscript drew heavily on the talks Sparks and Braun had given to CWLF members. Wallerstedt’s manuscript included a copy of a woodcut depicting a father and his two sons being taken to be burned during the repression of the Reformers and Anabaptists in the Netherlands under the direction of the Duke of Alva.14 The woodcut seems to be a window into the mindset of Sparks, Wallerstedt, and their NCAO confederates in their “war” against the local churches.15 After completing his manuscript, Wallerstedt left Berkeley, giving a copy of his paper to SCP and another to Sparks, who passed it on to Jon Braun.

Woodcut included in Wallerstedt’s manuscript

SCP Attacks the Local Churches

SCP first came to the attention of the local churches through tracts in which they characterized Witness Lee’s teaching as having “Eastern mystical” elements that promoted “mindlessness.” On the weekend of July 4-6, 1975, several hundred people attended a conference hosted by the church in Berkeley. As they were leaving the first meeting of the conference, attendees were met by a loud and confrontational group of CWLF/SCP members, one of whom had a bullhorn, stationed outside the auditorium exit, handing out leaflets and denouncing Witness Lee and “The Local Church.”

In October and November 1975, SCP sponsored workshops on heretical Eastern religions in nineteen cities across America. SCP’s advertisements indicated that the SCP workshops would include “The Local Church.” Members of the local churches attended sessions conducted by SCP director Brooks Alexander and others in Atlanta, Dallas, and Austin and publicly refuted their misrepresentations. An April 1977 SCP Newsletter stated that SCP was withdrawing all of its material on the local churches and asked for no further distribution of that material until SCP could complete “a new booklet.”

That “new booklet” was one of two related books attacking Witness Lee and the local churches that were then in development. Both came from the animus of Jack Sparks and Jon Braun manifested through the monograph drafted by Alan Wallerstedt. Braun used Wallerstedt’s manuscript in writing a chapter for inclusion in a book by Sparks called The Mindbenders. SCP developed Wallerstedt’s manuscript into its own book, The God-Men. The publication of both books in 1977 gave added force to the attack on the local churches because it appeared that the books came from two independent sources, when in fact they originated from the same manuscript.

Notes:

1 John Turner, Bill Bright & Campus Crusade for Christ: The Renewal of Evangelicalism in Postwar America (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2008), 134.

2 Transcript of interview with Peter Gillquist by Calvin Skaggs, “‘With God on Our Side’: Campus Crusade,” (New York, NY: Lumiere Productions, August 28, 1995), William Martin Religious Right research collection, Rice University, Box 74, 16-17; also Skaggs’s interview with Jon Braun in the same collection, 51, 57.

3 Peter Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox (Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1989), 15.

4 William Martin, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America (New York, Broadway Books, 1996), 94.

5 Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox, 16.

6 Lionel S. Haines, letter to James Miller. January 7, 1981; statement of John Glennon, September 13, 1980, 5-6.

7 Jack Sparks, “Theology, Anthropology and the Mystical Aberrations of Witness Lee,” talk given to CWLF members in Berkeley, California, 1973.

8 Ron Ludekens, “The Local Church of Isla Vista: aka Brothers and Sisters,” unpublished manuscript, November 28, 1973, 14-16, 20-21.

9 An early example is a message Edwards gave to current and former Crusaders at UCLA titled “God’s Eternal Purpose” in January 1969 (later known as “The UCLA Tape”). Every point of truth in his message came from the first two chapters of Witness Lee’s book The Vision of God’s Building, yet he never credited Witness Lee at all. Instead he spoke of Watchman Nee, saying that his work had been destroyed by the Communist takeover in China, and then said:

But I will not talk of that, of the work God did in the Far East through that man. I’ll not commend it to you today because of this: I sincerely believe that, as of now, right now, here today in this room God is going to do a greater thing than He has ever done before.

Edwards met intermittently with the local churches in the late 1960s, first in Tyler, Texas, and then in Los Angeles. After moving on to pursue his own ambitions to be an “apostle,” Edwards continued to visit the meeting place of the church in Los Angeles to pick up outlines from Witness Lee’s messages, which he would present as his own teaching with his own twist.

10 Ruth Stiling, “An Examination of the Evangelical Orthodox Church” (M.A. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 19.

11 Joseph H. Fester, “The Evangelical Orthodox Church and Its Dialogue with the Orthodox Church in America” (M.Div. thesis, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary, 1982), 9; Peter Gillquist, letter to NCAO churches, January 16, 1978.

12 Sarah Barringer Gordon, “Malnak v. Yogi: The New Age and the New Law,” Law and Religion: Cases in Context, Leslie C. Griffin, ed. (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2010), 11-31.

13 Bill Counts, “The Evangelical Orthodox Church and the New Covenant Apostolic Order,” Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Spring 1979.

14 The woodcut, which was the work of Jan Luiken (1649-1712) is “Burning of Jakob Dircks and his sons. Antwerp, 1568.” It appeared in Thieleman J. van. Braght, The Bloody Theatre or Martyrs’ Mirror of the Defenseless Christians Who Baptized Only upon Confession of Faith and Who Suffered and Died for the Testimony of Jesus Their Saviour … to the Year A.D. 1660.

15 Jon Braun, “My Soul Was Wounded at Watchman’s Knee,” unpublished manuscript, 24; interview with Ray Nethery, August 1, 1980; deposition of Richard Ballew, February 2, 1981: 204.

Is Our Appeal to the Courts in Accordance with Scripture?

Posted on by

Matthew 18:15-17

The Christian steps to resolve an unrighteous situation with brothers is described in Matthew 18:15-17. In accordance with this word, we wrote repeatedly to Harvest House Publishers and their authors, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, to explain their wrongdoing and the damages being caused by their book. We also asked repeatedly to meet with them in an attempt to resolve the matter. The reason for our protest was their false statements about Living Stream Ministry, The Local Church, and the local churches in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, a book which ascribes many evil traits to its subjects, including: “deception and evil,” causing “physical harm,” “degradation and perversion of sexuality,” “encouraged prostitution,” “sometimes raped women, beaten their disciples, molested children, practiced black magic and witchcraft, engaged in drug smuggling and other criminal activities, including murder,” “human sacrifice” etc.

The law in most states requires anyone who has been libeled to file suit within a specific time from “publication.” We wanted to assure that we would be within that time period, but offered Harvest House Publishers and the authors the opportunity to voluntarily extend the statute of limitations while an equitable resolution was worked out. As we continued to work in good faith to extend the statute of limitations and bring about dialogue consistent with Matthew 18, secretly, on Dec. 14, 2001, Harvest House initiated a lawsuit against us. In documents they filed in conjunction with that suit, our overtures to meet together in the biblical principle of Matthew 18 were characterized as “harassment.” After 11 months of attempting to resolve this matter peacefully as brothers in Christ, it became painfully obvious that we were not going to get a hearing with the publisher or authors. Even in the face of this, we gave them every opportunity to settle the problem in an equitable way.

Their disregard for our appeals concerning the book’s falsity, their reprinting of the book during this timeframe despite all the facts we provided to them, and finally, the filing of a lawsuit against us by Harvest House convinced us that we really had no alternative but to seek the relief that the laws of our nation allow. If we did not seek relief from this defamatory writing to the extent the law allows, then damages would continue to accumulate, as Christians and many others believed their false accusations were true. Matthew 18:15-17 sets forth the principles for Christians to attempt to resolve any unrighteous situation with any other believer. However, failing reconciliation, the Lord taught that the offending party is to be considered “just like the Gentile,” i.e. not despised, but now outside of Christian fellowship, to be related to as any other nonbeliever.

First Corinthians 6 and Acts 16, 22, and 25

In First Corinthians chapter six, the Apostle Paul rebuked the practice of an individual believer bypassing the steps in Matthew 18 and, instead of first seeking Christian reconciliation (1 Cor. 6:1-6), taking another brother directly to the law court. Paul says that it would have been better to be wronged than to defraud another believer by not presenting the matter “before the saints” and instead taking them directly to court. Although it may be implied, Scripture is silent as to whether, once fellowship and reconciliation are rejected in such a situation (Matt. 18:17b), and if the circumstances warrant it, the “Gentile” could then be taken to court by the wronged believer.

However, there is a crucial difference between the kind of “personal” lawsuits Paul condemned in First Corinthians 6 and the “appeal” he himself made to his government in the book of Acts. We believe that our appeal to the law courts for relief from this defamation is in the category of Paul’s appeals in the book of Acts. There, Paul first appealed for protection from those who attacked him and his ministry by asserting his rights under his Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37-38; 22:25). Later, when those opposing him sought to end his ministry he appealed to “Caesar’s judgment seat” and then to “Caesar”(Acts 25:10-12). Paul’s appeal to the established government of his day (see also Acts 25:14-19) was not for his personal gain (he was not afraid to die for the gospel) or to defraud anyone, but to defend and preserve the existence of the ministry the Lord had given him.

We consider the appeal to the courts by Living Stream Ministry, The Local Church and the local churches to be similar to Paul’s in Acts 25 — a necessary step for God’s interests, to continue the ministry the Lord has entrusted to us.

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Index

Posted on by

United States Supreme Court Declines Review

At the end of June, 2007, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear and rule in our case, Local Church, et al v. Harvest House, et al concerning defamatory statements in Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR) by John Ankerberg and John Weldon and published by Harvest House Publishers.

Contrary to claims otherwise, this case was never about religious, doctrinal or theological issues. It was about false and defamatory accusations of moral and criminal misdeeds thinly cloaked as a religious dispute and unsupported by fact in the work in question (ECNR).

It is important to note that no court ever ruled we are a cult: our case was never tried on its merits. Moreover, during the course of trial preparation, the authors of the book as well as Harvest House Publishers admitted that they had no evidence we had engaged in the conduct they had attributed to cults.

For more detailed information about the issues raised in this case, please read our petition and the amicus briefs linked below.

Newest Postings:

June 28, 2007

June 7, 2007

February 9, 2007

December 18, 2006

December 12, 2006

October 23, 2006

April 14, 2006

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Court Filings and Major Court Rulings

Posted on by

United States Supreme Court

June 28, 2007 [Press Release on the U.S. Supreme Court decision not to review the case]
June 7, 2007 Petition for Writ of Certiorari (May 16, 2007) supported by five amicus briefs:

Texas State Supreme Court

February 9, 2007 Amicus Brief Supporting Motion for Rehearing – Rodney A. Smolla
December 18, 2006 Motion for Rehearing – Texas Supreme Court
December 12, 2006 [Statement on the Texas Supreme Court decision not to review the case]
October 27, 2006 Reply to Response to Petition for Review
August 2, 2006 Petition for Review, supported by the following amicus briefs:

Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

February 16, 2006 Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing
January 16, 2006 [Statement on Appeals Court Decision]
September 15, 2004 Brief of Appellees

District Court of Harris County, Texas

March 9, 2004 Judge’s ruling denying Defendants’ second motion for full summary judgment
December 3, 2003 Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ “Second” Motion for Summary Judgment
November 19, 2003 Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment
June 13, 2003 Judge’s ruling denying defendants’ motion for full summary judgment and ordering discovery to proceed.
April 15, 2003 Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply to Defendants’ Memorandum Brief in Support of Defendants’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment
March 10, 2003 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
August 12, 2002 Judge’s ruling denying defendants’ (John Ankerberg, Harvest House Publishers and John Weldon’s) motion for partial summary judgment in the Texas lawsuit
July 22, 2002 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
December 31, 2001 Lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas, by Living Stream Ministry, the Local Church, and individual local churches

Circuit Court of the State of Oregon

March 15, 2002 Judge’s ruling dismissing the Oregon lawsuit which was filed by John Ankerberg, Harvest House Publishers and John Weldon on December 14, 2001

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Miscellaneous Procedural and Evidentiary Court Rulings

Posted on by

April 2, 2004

  • Order overruling Defendants’ objections to summary judgment evidence. This evidence included: “Local Church” chapters drafted two years after the first printing of ECNR, as well as other affidavits and deposition testimony. The unpublished chapters admit: “The Local Church … is unique among the groups in this encyclopedia. It is not a cult in the negative sense of the term, nor do the characteristics of cults in the Introduction generally apply to them.”

April 2, 2004

  • Order denying Defendants’ motion to stay (delay) discovery during Defendants’ appeal based on his ruling in the March 31, 2004, telephone hearing.

March 31, 2004

  • In a telephone hearing Judge Kent Sullivan denied Defendants’ motion to strike all of Plaintiffs’ experts, based on Defendants’ unwillingness to affirm or deny the truth or falsity of the charges in the book regarding the Plaintiffs. Judge Sullivan ruled that all ten of the Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses may testify.

December 16, 2002

  • Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Production Of Documents

December 16, 2002

  • Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and for Limitation of Discovery

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Press Releases

Posted on by

June 28, 2007

June 7, 2007

February 13, 2007

December 12, 2006

February 27, 2006

January 16, 2006

November 1, 2005

April 20, 2004

June 20, 2003

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Rutherford Institute Amicus

Posted on by

Living Stream Ministry and The Local Church
Clarify Issues Related to Landmark Lawsuit Addressing Publisher’s Responsibility Beyond Right to Publish

Houston, Nov. 1, 2005 – The Rutherford Institute (TRI) recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of Harvest House Publishers, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon in their appeal, Harvest House et al vs. The Local Church, Living Stream Ministry and various local churches, of the trial court’s decision to deny their summary judgment motions. The appeal was heard in oral argument in the Texas State Court of Appeals on October 27, 2005.

Both publishers involved are members of the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association and should be governed by their standards, which reflect biblical principles. Regrettably, Harvest House has neglected those standards and continues to refuse to resolve the matter of including Living Stream Ministry and The Local Church in their publication of Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR) outside of the realm of litigation.

This case goes beyond the freedom of speech or the right to publish to the responsibility for what is published. The Rutherford Institute’s brief clarifies the limits to First Amendment rights on page two, stating that writers also must be “responsible for the abuse of that privilege.” This case is not about freedom, but abuse.

The Rutherford Amicus brief and related press release mischaracterize the nature of the conflict, the facts upon which it is based and the law that governs the issues involved. What is before the court is not a question about “general definitions” written in the normal course of publication. Neither does it have anything to do with theology or religious doctrine.

This litigation concerns a deliberate, systematic attempt by a Christian publisher and its authors to accuse Living Stream Ministry and the local churches of criminal behavior and abhorrent conduct – including rape, drug smuggling, child molestation, prostitution, murder and human sacrifice – without taking any responsibility for the falsity of those accusations.

Furthermore, despite repeated efforts by Living Stream Ministry and the local churches, Harvest House and their authors have steadfastly refused to meet as Christian brothers to resolve the conflict directly, according to the biblical mandate in Matthew 18. It was Harvest House, John Ankerberg and John Weldon who initiated the litigation, who brought this matter into the courts, and, at the same time, continued to republish the book.

The abuse of publication privilege in this case has been further demonstrated by the overwhelming evidence before the court. The authors testified under oath that readers could apply the “non-theological evils” of the ECNR Introduction and Appendix to the Local Church. Harvest House personnel confirmed that the language could be applied to the local churches. There is ample testimony that readers have related this criminal language to the local churches and Living Stream Ministry.

The trial court has already twice rejected the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, which argued that the attribution of crimes and abhorrent behavior could not be applied by a reasonable reader to the local churches. The language of the book itself is clearer than any lawyer’s argument–what is in the Introduction applies to the groups in the book. It is what the defendants intended and accomplished.

While it is clear that the publisher and authors had the local churches in mind when they wrote those horrendous charges, it is equally true that they have been completely unable to substantiate any of them. In fact they have admitted: “The Local Church.is unique among the groups in this encyclopedia. It is not a cult in the negative sense of the term, nor do the characteristics of the cults in the Introduction generally apply to them.”

The question then is why are the local churches and Living Stream Ministry in their book? One would expect that the Rutherford Institute would rather encourage the authors and publishers to publish what they have already admitted-that the local churches and Living Stream Ministry do not belong in the “Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions.”

Romans 13 tells us that government is instituted under God’s sovereign ruling to protect society from lawlessness. The law concerning defamation is well defined and has layers of protection for the free expression of writers and publishers as well as provisions to deal with the deliberate misuse of publications to harm others. Christian publications are covered under that same law.

Though it appears the Rutherford brief means to suggest that Christians should be treated differently, certainly the standard among Christians should not be lower than those for other writers and publishers. If the law determines that one set of authors and publishers have deliberately done wrong, this will not chill the freedom of all Christian writers and publishers. A more likely result will be to encourage all Christian publishers to follow the higher standards our faith demands.

For background on this case, including copies of official court documents, go to http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/harvest-house-et-al/ [now /defense/encyclopedia-of-cults-and-new-religions/.

The entire Press Release is available in Adobe format here.