LSM will “appeal…all the way up to the US Supreme Court”

“Playing the ‘China Card’?”

Early in 2006 a Texas court threw out a $136M lawsuit filed by Living Stream Ministry

(LSM) against Harvest House, the publishers of the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions.

Is LSM about to quit the courts? It doesn’t look like it. One battle may have been lost, but the

war continues. “We are determined to continue this fight,” says a recent statement1. LSM has

applied for a re-hearing before the same court. “If they decline to hear it, we then will take it to

the Texas Supreme Court,” the statement says. They won’t stop there either, “If they choose

not to hear it, we can then appeal to the US Supreme Court.” LSM is facing an up-hill battle in

the law courts. Nevertheless, they are in it for the long haul; “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,” LSM says.

The Christian Community takes a Negative View

LSM and Harvest House are both Christian publishers. In fact both belong to the

Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA). So, why would LSM take their brothers

(Harvest House and the book’s authors) to court? LSM contends that their inclusion in the

Encyclopedia of Cults libels them via accusations of criminal and abhorrent behavior it

attributes to ‘cults.’ Yet, shouldn’t Christians “turn the other cheek”? The Bible clearly

admonishes believers not to sue each other in the law courts (1 Cor. 6:1-6). The wider

Christian community sees this lawsuit as a violation of this Scriptural injunction.

Consequently, they take a dim view of this practice. The influential periodical, Christianity

Today (CT) says2, “the Local Church implicitly sabotages its argument—that it is a legitimate

member of the body of Christ—when it treats fellow members as if they were not, by taking

them to court.” Moreover, CT adds, “the Local Church also has a history of suing those who

have portrayed it as a cult.” Hence, we are portrayed as a “suing church.” So why is LSM

engaged in a lawsuit? [This last sentence is false. They are not portrayed as a suing church, but rather the suing tares].

Is LSM “cutting straight the word of the truth”?

LSM poses the question, “Is our appeal to the courts in accordance to the Scriptures?”

Their answer contains a novel exposition which permits lawsuits under some conditions. They

claim “In First Corinthians chapter six, the Apostle Paul rebuked the practice of an individual

believer bypassing the steps in Matthew 18

Correcting a Fellow Believer
15 "If another believer* sins against you, go privately and point out the fault. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. 16 But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. 17 If that person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. If the church decides you are right, but the other person won't accept it, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector. 18 I tell you this: Whatever you prohibit on earth is prohibited in heaven, and whatever you allow on earth is allowed in heaven.
19 "I also tell you this: If two of you agree down here on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you. 20 For where two or three gather together because they are mine,* I am there among them."

and, instead of first seeking Christian

reconciliation (1 Cor. 6:1-6), taking another brother directly to the law court.”3

Avoiding Lawsuits with Christians
When you have something against another Christian, why do you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter, instead of taking it to other Christians to decide who is right? 2 Don't you know that someday we Christians are going to judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can't you decide these little things among yourselves? 3 Don't you realize that we Christians will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disagreements here on earth. 4 If you have legal disputes about such matters, why do you go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? 5 I am saying this to shame you. Isn't there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these arguments? 6 But instead, one Christian* sues another-right in front of unbelievers!
7 To have such lawsuits at all is a real defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? 8 But instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your own Christian brothers and sisters.*

[Let me say in all truthfulness and sincerity, I have the authority in Christ to decide this matter because I am an apostle for the church, and you may test me as you wish to know that this is true. May I say again that almost all leeists are unregenerates, because of the 6 major sins of leeism - Troy Brooks]

Seemingly,

lawsuits are OK once the steps of reconciliation in Matthew 18 have been tried! But hasn’t this

exposition changed the meaning of 1 Corinthians 6? Even Witness Lee says, Paul “fully

disagreed with brother going to law with brother, and that before unbelievers.”4. Surely, one

interpretation of Brother Lee’s phrase “fully disagreed” would be “absolutely”, “under all

circumstances” or “unconditionally.” In the light of this, a skeptic might ask, is LSM’s

exposition “cutting straight the word of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) or is it changing the meaning

of 1 Cor. 6? We will not pause here to answer that question, since LSM bases its case for legal

action, upon less familiar Scriptures – Paul’s appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:11; 28:19)

If I have done something worthy of death, I don't refuse to die. But if I am innocent, neither you nor anyone else has a right to turn me over to these men to kill me. I appeal to Caesar!" (Acts 25.11). But when the Jewish leaders protested the decision, I felt it necessary to appeal to Caesar, even though I had no desire to press charges against my own people. Appealing to “Caesar” (Acts 28.19).

In justifying their lawsuit, LSM frequently cites the precedent of Paul’s appeal to

Caesar. Hence LSM says5, “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.”

[Paul is being condemned to death by his own people, not merely being accused of being a cult. Paul is defending his life, not his faith. He is on the defense, whereas the leeist is on the offense. This is completely different than the actions of a leeist suing Chritians for faith. We need to reject this misapplication of the Word of God - Troy]

Paul’s Active Ministry vs Brother Lee’s Legacy?

Does the Apostle Paul’s appeal to Caesar in Acts 25 provide a Biblical basis for LSM’s

lawsuit? LSM says7, “We believe that our appeal to the law courts …is in the category of

Paul's appeals in the book of Acts.” They explain, “Paul's appeal [was] …to defend and

preserve the existence of the ministry the Lord had given him.” There is, however, a major

difference between Paul’s case and the current one. Paul’s was aimed at preserving his life and

hence his active ministry. The present case deals with the legacy of Brother Witness Lee, who

passed away in 1997. We grant that Brother Lee had the right to defend his active ministry via

the law courts, as he did against The God-Men10. However, this does not mean LSM’s present

lawsuit can also be justified based upon Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Yes, Paul appealed to Caesar

to prolong his active ministry. However, we find in the New Testament no posthumous

“appeal to Caesar” to defend the legacy of Paul, nor of any other apostle. The question

remains: Does Acts 25 provide an adequate Scriptural basis for LSMs lawsuit to protect

the legacy of Brother Lee’s ministry?8

[The answer is irrevocably NO! First off, a ministry for the Lord is not incorporated and does not have a name called The Local Church or Living Stream Ministry. Missionaries do not incorporate. The local churches do not have a corporation central hub. We must therefore conclude that it is wrong to call the outlets of the lsm/lc cult by the name of local churches, for the local churches are local expressions of the body of Christ. Leeist cells are not local expressions of the body of Christ. The Ministry of the Work is comprised of 4 individuals - apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers. The responsible elders of a locality and elders of meeting places are also not incorporated. This is what distinguishes the body of Christ. We are not incorporated in the work of ministries - Troy]

The China Factor

Surprisingly LSM justifies continued litigation, not based upon Scriptural

considerations, but on China! In answer to the question, “Why are we continuing in the

present litigation?” we read9, “Following the Texas [court’s] decision …the many house

churches in China that follow our teaching and practices…[asked] how they could prepare for

the new wave of persecution to come “now that we are a ‘cult.'” A report is cited from

“Zhejiang province that government officials have approached our brothers to tell them that

…they have learned that a Texas court has now labeled them a cult.” Local-church believers in

China are being persecuted because the Texas court has labeled us a ‘cult,’ LSM says.

[Though it is wrong to persecute a cult, nonetheless the Chinese government is persecuting the lsm/lc cult because they are a cult, not because they are members of the body of Christ. It would be false pretenses to presume the persecution is because they are members of the body of Christ given that the Church does not believe in the 6 major sins of leeism. God says we shall know them by their fruit. The way to stop the persecution in China is to change the way the government operates and to dismantle the lsm/lc cult, not to falsely claim that they are not a cult because that would be feeding a lie - Troy)

“Reckless, False and Evil Rumors” OR Accurate Assessment?

Previously, the “concerned brothers” commented on this case, saying, prior to the

Texas decision, “’In the “court of public opinion’ we could argue, ‘The [God-Man] book,

called us a cult; but the courts judged that claim to be false and libelous. This proves we’re not

a cult.’ That argument is now undercut by the Texas Court’s decision. The courts have rejected

LSM and the churches’ case. In the ‘court of public opinion,’ people can now respond, ‘Yes,

you are indeed a cult. You contested the inclusion of the local churches in the Encyclopedia of

Cults and New Religions, and you lost!’ ”11

[When the leeists sued the God-man book written about them, there were those who knew the lsm/lc was a cult even though Dudley lost the case because of lack of funds. He subsequently went bankrupt. Also notice the bad logic by the leeists in that now people will consider them a cult because of the Texas findings. Since Christians are not suppose to appeal to the courts on matters of faith, then it shouldn't matter what decision is rendered, nor should the case even be pursued to any court jurisdiction. Yet the argument used by leeists is completely contrary. Their sense of self is highly dependant on man's courts, which is in violation of 1 Cor. 6.7,8 - Troy]

Brother Dan Towle et. al. responded to our comments with a scathing critique. Under

the title: “The source of the false and evil rumors should be REJECTED,” they say12 “The

[concerned brothers’] article says that, because of the recent court loss, “people can now

respond, ‘Yes, you are indeed a cult.’” Not even our opposers have presented the court’s

ruling in such a negative light!” They continue by saying, “The [concerned brothers’]

statement that we can now be freely labeled a “cult” is reckless.”

[I am an apostle for the Church, and I do oppose the lsm/lc cult, so it is not correct to say that opposers have NOT presented the court ruling in such a positive light for the Church, or negative for the cult, that the lsm/lc system is a cult. This is a wonderful victory for the Church. Also notice the trickery of words used by the leeist. First they make it seem like the opposers, such as myself, do not even come to the same conclusion that the lsm/lc is a cult, yet we do. Secondly, the "concerned brothers" which would be Christians, not leeists, do not say it is reckless knowing the lsm/lc system is a cult. It is prudent and discerning rather. We need to distinguish here between the "concerned brothers" such as myself who are Christians, and the unsaved tares who call themselves concerned brothers, since the former do not believe in the 6 major sins of leeism  - Troy]

When the “concerned brothers” raised the possibility that, due to the Texas decision,

“In the ‘court of public opinion,’ people can now respond, ‘Yes, you are indeed a cult’,”

Brother Dan Towle denounced this as a “reckless statement” and “false and evil rumors,”

However, when justifying LSM continued litigation, Brother Dan writes: “many house

churches in China …[asked] how they could prepare for the new wave of persecution to come

“now that we are a ‘cult.'” Moreover, “government officials have …learned that a Texas court

has now labeled them a cult.” Wait a minute! Doesn’t this repeat the statement he just

denounced as “reckless” talk and “false and evil rumors”? When the “concerned brothers”

raised this specter, Brother Dan says, “Not even our opposers have presented the court’s

ruling in such a negative light!” Yet, he turns around and acknowledges that this is already

occurring in China! Perhaps, Brother Dan Towle can tells us, were the “concerned brothers’”

comments indeed, “reckless”, “false and evil rumors” (as he claims) OR were they an

accurate assessment of the repercussions of the Texas court decision? Brother Dan, you

cannot have it both ways!

[Since the lsm/lc is a cult, they would be misrepresenting any persecution they receive as though they were the church, since they are not the church, but the tares (Matthew 13). Any persecution they do receive should be cited for the true cause, not a false cause - Troy]

“Playing the ‘China Card’ ”

The interpretation of the Texas court’s decision – that it labels us a ‘cult’ -- is

erroneous. That’s why our comments dealt with how the court’s decision might be “spun” in

“the court of public opinion.” The Texas court did not “label the local churches as a ‘cult’.”

The court ruled that this was a “religious question,” and hence outside its jurisdiction.

[Ergo, the lsm/lc cult should have never taken this case to court to begin with, violating Matt. 18 and 1 Cor. 6. However, they would not be violating these verses if they were not the Church to begin with. It is erroneous to say such an organization is not a cult when they are, in fact, a cult - Troy]

Nevertheless, LSM’s point is that this judgment provides “ammunition” for the persecution of

local-church believers in mainland China. Hence LSM says, they will seek to overturn the

Texas court’s decision in order to “to spare other genuine believers [in China] from

imprisonment.” This argument – “the China card” – is the main justification LSM offers for

continuing its litigation. Does it make sense?

First, may we ask: Why was the “China factor” never mentioned before? We cannot

recall any prior reference by LSM to China. Why has this “rabbit” now been produced out of

the “magician’s hat”? Some of LSM’s leaders are very knowledgeable about the forces at play

in mainland China. Before launching the original lawsuit against Harvest House wasn’t the

impact on believers in China considered? Didn’t LSM realize that the law courts are a “twoedged

sword” and that “those who take up the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52,

RcV.)? The legal decision against “The God-men” was used (in the “court of public opinion”)

to argue that we are not a ‘cult.’ But this argument “cuts both ways.” The recent Texas decision

provides an equivalent basis for some to claim, “Yes, You are indeed a ‘cult’!” Had LSM

never launched this lawsuit, no “legal ammunition” would have been provided to persecutors;

Perhaps the book, Encyclopedia of Cults, would have already sunk into oblivion. Doesn’t

responsibility for the present situation rest (at least in part) with LSM for initiating legal

proceedings in the first place?

[Taking responsibility for their actions is not something a leeist is able to do because they are possessed by the demon of leeism. To show you this condition, observe the continued self-proclaimed flawlessness of the leeist at factnet.org and deflection of the 6 major sins of leeism, wherein to the eye of reasoning they have made scores of errors, but in the eyes of the leeist, they are flawless. After hundrends and hundreds of posts, this is the finding. I have subsequently been banned from this forum because of all the complaints lodged by leeists against me. Nonetheless, the bad conduct of the leeist is preserved in the commentary at factnet.org. My responses to their posts since being banned can be found here which expose them and their horrible rationalizations. - Troy]

“Witness Lee was the acting God” – avoiding the ‘cult label’?

Second, how serious is LSM in fighting the ‘cult’ label? LSM expresses concern that

the ‘cult label’ may cause persecution to believers elsewhere. Based upon this, one would

expect LSM to exercise great care in this regard. Unfortunately recent history reveals

otherwise. In the LSM 2005 Winter Training, Brother Ron Kangas declared from the podium13

that “Witness Lee was the acting God.” Unsympathetic observers will interpret this statement

as “deifying Brother Lee,” thus fulfilling one characteristic of a “cult profile” – the exaltation

and glorifying of the leader. Within days, Brother Ron’s statement was reported and posted on

the world-wide web. Is this the caution one would expect from LSM leaders who are deeply

concerned about the impact of the ‘cult’ label on believers in China? Rather, it seems an LSM

“blended co-worker” is willing to risk tarnishing all the saints and churches with the “cult”

label in order to achieve a little “shock value” by declaring, “Witness Lee was the acting

God.” We realize this speaking did not appear in print14. Yet damage has already been done to

the saints and the local churches. Moreover, a sceptic may question, how serious are LSM’s

“blended co-workers” about avoiding the ‘cult’ label “to spare other genuine believers from

imprisonment.”? A cynic might even ask, is LSM’s declaration an expression of earnest

concern for Chinese believers or is it merely public posturing?

[Since there is no justification in the Bible for calling oneself God, this is one of the 6 major sins of leeism, which we shall know them by their fruit as being not Christians. The reason the leeists pursue legal action is because they are cocky. They have beat up on some small potatoes and put them into bankruptcy, but the big potatoes are not so easy to push around because they have more money. Leeists contributions have dropped from over 35 million peak (prior to 1999) a year to under 1 million a year, so you can see that suing for $136 million is one last desperate ploy to survive as a cult. It's all or nothing this time. The trend of their demise is God's will. - Troy]

Time to Quit this “High-stakes Game”?

We cannot change the past. However we can re-assess the merits of the next legal step:

Should the local churches support LSM’s appeal to the Texas Supreme Court and

ultimately (perhaps) to the US Supreme Court? Based upon the arguments presented by

LSM, we wonder. May we ask, doesn’t further legal action “raise the stakes even higher”?

[Leeists are not suppose to be suing in the first place, so why let sin beget sin with the next legal step? Also, the lawsuits for "The Local Church" and "LSM" also included the "local churches" which is misrepresenting the body of Christ, since the local churches of the body of Christ did not participate in their legal action. This is bearing false witness against God's children. - Troy]

Based upon LSM’s own reasoning, a legal victory, overturning the Texas court’s decision, will

take away “ammunition” from those oppressing local-church believers in China. However, we

cannot simply assume that LSM will win this case. Legal victory is far from certain. We

cannot simply “hope for the best.”

[We, the body of Christ know the outcome will be failure for the lsm/lc cult. Why is this writer saying "We" as though he is a member of the lsm/lc cult? - Troy]

Should LSM suffer additional legal set-backs won’t these

provide additional “ammunition” to the opposers? In that case, won’t this cause yet more

suffering to local-church believers in China? Doesn’t further litigation simply “up the ante” in

this “high stakes game”? Consider the “worst case scenario” -- a legal ruling by the US

Supreme Court against LSM and the local churches. In that event (which we have no desire to

see), Chinese government officials could say, “Even the US Supreme Court, the highest court

in the land, has labeled you a cult.”

[Though the Church does not concern itself with such things, such a ruling would be most profitable, because the lsm/lc system is a cult, and thus, any negative consequences from the Chinese government will further show the need for change in China's corrupted system, that it should not abuse such cults, let alone the Church. We do not hope such a ruling is denied, for then we would be agreeing the lsm/lc system is not a cult, when we know full well that it is a cult. - Troy]

Won’t this cause additional persecution and suffering to the

saints in China? Considered in this light, it is not at all clear (at least to us) that further legal

action is justified. Speaking for ourselves, we find LSM’s justification for continued litigation

far from compelling. Moreover, LSM has admitted that15, “there could still be years of

litigation ahead of us.” In the process (what is not mentioned), millions of dollars in legal fees

would accrue to lawyers and law firms. Some cynics may even ask: Do the saints really want

their church offerings used to finance more BMWs for lawyers? Aren’t US lawyers rich

enough without our help? LSM’s recent declaration that they will “appeal…all the way up to

the US Supreme Court” has greater rhetorical impact. Yet, perhaps we should consider a more

prudent option: Is it ‘time to call it quits’?

“Concerned Brothers”

April 2006

[Again, this writer keeps saying "we" and "our" as though he is a member of the lsm/lc cult that doesn't want their funds wasted anymore. The fact that the lsm/lc cult is losing lots of money on vain lawsuits is a blessing to the Church from such cults. I am concerned that this "Concerned Brother" is not a member of the body of Christ, but merely a concerned brother of the lsm/lc cult. - Troy]

NOTES:

1. Quotes in this paragraph from “Why Are We Continuing in the Present Litigation?” posted on both

Contendingforthefaith.com and localchurch-vs-harvesthouse.org web-sites 27 Feb. 2006

2. “Loose Cult Talk” editorial in Christianity Today, March 2006, Vol. 50, No. 3, Page 27

3. Quote from “Is our Appeal to the Courts in Accordance with Scripture?” Contendingforthefaith.com website

(emphasis added)

4. Witness Lee, Life-study of 1 Corinthians, Anaheim, CA, Living Stream Ministry, p. 330, emphasis added

5. “Is our Appeal to the Courts in Accordance with Scripture?” Contendingforthefaith.com web-site

6. “The Co-workers in the Lord’s Recovery,” The Beliefs and Practices of the local churches, Anaheim, CA,

Living Stream Ministry, (1978) p. 15

7. “Is our Appeal to the Courts in Accordance with Scripture?” Contendingforthefaith.com web-site

8. For more discussion on this point, see “The God-Men Case vs The Encyclopedia of Cults case—the Same or

Different?” on this site

9. Quotes from “Why Are We Continuing in the Present Litigation?” Contendingforthefaith.com and

localchurch-vs-harvesthouse.org

10. Contendingforthefaith.com

11. See “Texas Court Rules against LSM” by “concerned brothers” (on this site). The quote appears as points 5

& 6 under the heading, “What does this Legal Opinion mean?”

12. The following quotes appear in “Concerning Rumors spread about the Present Litigation

by "Concerned Brothers" by Dan Towle, Bill Buntain & Dan Sady. They appear as point 6 with the heading:

“The source of the false and evil rumors should be REJECTED” www.AFaithfulWord.org

13. Ron Kangas message on “The Work of the Divine Building, LSM 2005 Winter Training on The

Crystallization Study of The Building of God, Anaheim, CA, December, 2005

14. The context of the statement was, under the heading: “Needing to be One with the Wise Master Builder

Who is the Acting God”: “If we would do the work of the divine building, we must be one with the wise master

builder, who is the acting God. …The apostle Paul, …surely was the acting God, representing Him….Thus, we

believe that, in principle, in the Lord’s recovery our brother Lee was the wise master builder. If we want to do the

work of building, we need to also be one with him. ” see The Ministry, magazine vol. 10, no. 1, Jan./Feb. 2006,

Anaheim, CA, Living Stream Ministry, pp. 212-3 (emphasis added) In this context, the spoken message

contained the statement: “Witness Lee was the acting God.” [That statement was omitted from the printed

version]

15. Quote from “Why Are We Continuing in the Present Litigation?” posted on both

Contendingforthefaith.com and localchurch-vs-harvesthouse.org