All Comments for: Cult Watchers Reconsider | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > January (Web-only)

Christianity Today, January (Web-only), 2009 |

Theology in the News

Cult Watchers Reconsider

Former detractors of Nee and Lee now endorse 'local churches.'

Collin Hansen | posted 1/26/2009 09:58AM

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

Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 52 comments.

Page: 1 2 3

Show All

HN	Posted: February 04, 2009 8:47 AM

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

Human Nature

Posted: February 03, 2009 8:41 PM

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

GB	Posted: February 03, 2009 3:31 PM

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

Human Nature

Posted: February 03, 2009 2:58 PM

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

GB	Posted: February 03, 2009 2:19 PM

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

GB	Posted: February 03, 2009 1:48 PM

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

Human Nature

Posted: February 03, 2009 11:49 AM

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

GB	Posted: February 03, 2009 8:42 AM

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

Fuller Supporter

Posted: February 02, 2009 3:03 PM

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

Ron Starling

Posted: February 02, 2009 2:15 PM

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

HumanNature

Posted: February 01, 2009 1:13 PM

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

Sue	Posted: February 01, 2009 8:58 AM


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

Eat_the_peach

Posted: January 31, 2009 7:53 PM

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

KissTheSon

Posted: January 31, 2009 7:47 PM

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

loverofchrist

Posted: January 31, 2009 4:07 PM

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

Nathaniel

Posted: January 31, 2009 3:13 PM

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

Poormansprophet

Posted: January 31, 2009 10:23 AM

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

Peter Simon

Posted: January 30, 2009 9:03 PM

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

KissTheSon

Posted: January 30, 2009 8:16 PM

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

Daniel

Posted: January 30, 2009 7:02 PM

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

Sal, Fargo

Posted: January 30, 2009 4:27 PM

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

Ohio	Posted: January 30, 2009 1:32 PM

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

mr po from hongkong, china

Posted: January 29, 2009 8:54 PM


who is to judge who is orthodox and who is heresy amongst evangelicals and evangelical groups? i would say none. as the chinese saying goes, they are all shan tze wang--little kinglets in their own mountains. mentally speaking, this is fundamentalists fighting fundamentalists. what a recurring theme and what a mess.

Samuel Yu

Posted: January 29, 2009 3:59 PM

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

Nathaniel

Posted: January 29, 2009 3:09 PM

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

Page: 1 2 3

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment