Witness Lee and the "Local Churches": A Personal Testimony
by Daniel Azuma
Part 4: Recovery From "Recovery"
Leaving is definitely the most painful part of the cult experience. Most former cult members go through a period of bitterness, disillusionment, fear, even madness is known to happen on occasion. Myself, I felt frustrated, cheated. I felt friendships were torn from me; I felt my walk with God had been left in shambles; I couldn't believe that such things could really happen, especially to me.
The experience has had a number of effects on me and on my spiritual life. Perhaps the most poignant of these has been a definite mistrust of churches, groups, denominations, ministries, nearly any organization of Christians-- not the individual believers themselves of course, but the overall group vision. Having been burned once before, badly, it is a difficult thing to come back and be trusting. Whenever visiting a congregation, I inevitably end up critiquing it, even subconsciously, based on what my experience was with the "Local Churches." My critiquing involves not only looking for those elements of behavior and doctrine that led me to leave that movement, but also those elements about which the "Local Churches" are critical of the mainstream Christian church. Because of my experience, issues on both those fronts have become issues about which I am particularly sensitive, and this sometimes becomes a hindrance to my normal interaction with my Christian brothers and sisters. Many people I've spoken with who have had similar experiences also report feeling the same kind of sensitivity and mistrust; it is probably a common end result of a cult-related experience.
Even now: it is five and a half years after my final exit, after an involvement of barely more than a year. Even now, although I've joined and committed to a small Southern Baptist church in my area, I maintain visiting ties with no fewer than four other churches of various types, as if I'm hedging my bets, diversifying my holdings, waiting for my involvement with my church to go sour. It is a trait that the Lord has used, somehow, giving me the vision and the desire to hear the Word of God being spoken in various places and take it across denominational borders. However, the attitude behind it, the fear, is not healthy.
Also in response to the experience, I have become an advocate of the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi- (or at least non-) denominational church. I believe diversity is one of the most important qualities that can be present in a congregation. Because if we become too comfortable with our understanding of God's Word and God's will, if we fall into a routine of the same messages preached from the same minds, if we are not challenged to re-evaluate, rethink and recommit, then we risk falling into the trap of believing we have all the answers already. Such an attitude leads to stagnation at best. But at worst, it can grow into cultism.
Among the other effects has been a rather bizarre race-related psychological phenomenon, which has only now begun to wear off. Because congregations of the "Local Churches," particularly on the west coast, are often mostly Chinese, when I meet someone of Chinese background, particularly the older generation, I sometimes have a reflex flashback to my experience with that movement, which often leads to a subconscious wondering whether or not the individual is part of the "Local Churches." I'm able to intellectually suppress the thought, with the knowledge that it is extremely unlikely that any given individual happens to be a member of a relatively little-known sect, but it is nevertheless an irritating and unfortunate psychological result. Although none of the other former members of this group that I've talked to ever described this same particular phenomenon, I can imagine that it or similar psychological connections are not uncommon.
It wasn't until several months after having left the movement permanently that I first came across critical material about the "Local Churches." It was in the form of a set of essays written by Jim Moran and first published on the Internet the summer of my departure from the movement, 1995. They focused primarily on the deviations of the group's systematic theology from the "mainstream" Biblical view. I immediately contacted Jim, and since then we have collaborated on occasion regarding our respective efforts to understand the movement and make information on it available to others. We both presently maintain Internet sites dedicated to the "Local Churches," and we have both dealt with the variety of responses one gets when engaged in such an activity, from curiosity to thankfulness to open hostility. Nevertheless, as an actual former member who has been through the cult experience, I sometimes find myself at odds with Jim and other more distant observers regarding our approaches to the topic, even some of our conclusions about the group. I do respect and highly recommend Jim's work, but I make no secret of the fact that I disagree with some of his conclusions, which sometimes seem off-the-wall and occasionally involve horrendous extrapolations.
Former members will also report differing reactions to the "Local Churches." There are those who left the movement for one reason or another but do not consider it harmful enough to deserve the label of "cult," and in my opinion that is definitely a very defendable viewpoint, even though I don't share it myself. Others have been hurt much more than I was. Despite the lingering effects of my involvement, I can say now that I had more or less completely recovered from the primary post-cult trauma after a year and a half or so. Some former members I've encountered tell me that, for them, it has been far longer and still is not over. And I can understand why: my involvement was mild in comparison. It lasted only about 18 months, I was never involved in leadership, I never had to deal with any truly major "incidents," most of my peers within the movement were relatively reasonable, and I had considerable "outside" Christian support. God had so much mercy on me in my situation, but others I have spoken with were not so lucky. But for any former member of a cultic group, the experience of leaving, or being kicked out, is not a trivial one, and not something that can be shaken or shrugged off easily. It is a scar that lasts for a very long time.
Before I share my concluding thoughts on my experience, the group known as the "Local Churches," and what our proper response must be to such topics, I think it necessary to make some comments on efforts-- by me, by Jim Moran, and by others-- to critique the movement. Although both theological and sociological arguments are used to label the group known as the "Local Churches" a cult or a deviant sect, my own experience and testimony focuses on the sociological. Several reasons exist for this. One, the doctrinal and theological aspects of the argument have already been explored pretty well by others, including Walter Martin and Jim Moran, and, not (yet) having a seminary background myself, I would not have much meaningful to add. Second, the original reasons for my exit from the group were mainly sociological, and as such I have the most experience with and understanding of the sociological aspects of the situation.
However, once we enter into a sociological discussion, we must immediately be cautious. How does one define sociological purity, what is legitimate and what is not? If a movement such as the "Local Churches" employs persuasive strategies to influence its membership, is that any different from the present-day global media? Or, for that matter, common occurrences in everyday present-day interpersonal interactions? How can we label any group "dangerous" in the light of such confusion?
It is because of such concerns that we must make an important distinction when examining the "Local Churches," and indeed many similar groups. In the eyes of the world, the present-day secular sin-laden human society, it is very debatable whether "Local Churches" can be called a cult. They are an interesting religious movement, but perhaps no more interesting than many other religions, corporations, medical practices, military organizations, or governments (even those we might consider legitimate or benign). Almost any kind of organization might employ similar indoctrination strategies, exhibit similar group dynamics, even result in similar psychological disorders during an individual's stay or after an individual's exit. A close secular examination of the "Local Churches" may never reveal anything significantly "wrong" when measured against the standard of human society, anything seriously different from the sociological norm. The sociological study of what has been dubbed "new religious movements" will often take this view: the view that many groups are improperly labeled as cults because their behavior, though perhaps offensive to traditionalists, actually turns out to be no worse than modern cultural norms when scrutinized from an objective viewpoint. Indeed, apologists for movements such as the "Local Churches" will often invoke this viewpoint in order to defend the group's behavior.
Once, however, we step into the ground of the church, the situation changes dramatically. The church was established with the understanding of a clear separation from the "world." Much more than the oft-maligned "separation of church and state," this means a separation of attitude, of culture, of values, of priorities. If a group or movement professes Jesus Christ, if it chooses to align itself with the Christian church, we can no longer evaluate it according to human standards. I like to call this the "beer commercial" principle. Many of us have those on television-- marketing schemes that employ portrayals of crude, rebellious or sometimes even sexually explicit situations in order to entice people to use their products. Although we see such methods of persuasion in modern-day society and we often don't bat an eye, even Christian liberals would probably agree such methods are probably not appropriate in the church.
Is it appropriate to employ psychological conditioning (or should I say brainwashing?) to achieve an end? Military organizations, in addition to physical and mental conditioning, regularly use psychological conditioning to help prepare members for the rigors and horrors of combat situations. Many organizations such as drug or alcohol rehabilitation services even depend on such psychological conditioning to achieve their desired results. And most of us probably say these methods are good, effective and appropriate.
How about the church? The church was established to provide a means to help believers in Jesus Christ to learn spiritual truth and develop a life lived in response to the knowledge of the grace of God, and it was established to glorify God before the nations and introduce people to saving faith in Jesus Christ. But it is one of the most basic beliefs of the Christian faith that we humans are not by ourselves capable of attaining salvation, fulfilling our purpose, even achieving self-satisfaction. Relying on our own means, we cannot succeed, and we risk dragging others down with us; instead, we need God to perform these miracles within us. In such an environment, is the human method of psychological conditioning appropriate? In a gathering of Christians, dare we mess with our God-given minds, doing harm to ourselves in our mad rush to attain the appearance and feeling of spiritual self-enlightenment?
Nearly every form of organized religion includes the explicit or implied belief that it and only it provides the absolute spiritual truth. Christianity is no exception, because Jesus Himself claimed that no one may come to the Father but through Him. As a world society, many have chosen to deal with that inherent contradiction by advocating tolerance, by saying it is okay and appropriate to believe that everyone outside one's group or belief system is wrong, as long as those beliefs don't translate into criminal actions. Religions will attack and ridicule each other, often without even realizing it, and (as long as such attacks do not turn military in nature) most people will watch and not bat an eye. But within the Christian church, meant to provide a unified testimony of Jesus Christ, is it right for one subgroup to attack and ridicule another? According to the Bible, is it healthful for one group of Christians to proclaim themselves "The Lord's Recovered Church," isolate themselves from their Christian brothers and sisters, attempt to propagate the belief that no one but themselves has been given the highest truth, and claim that to join any other "Christian" organization is tantamount to apostasy? Is that the expression of the church?
The "Local Churches" are an organization of Christian congregations, loosely tied together and to a central administrative and doctrinal leadership. I say Christian because they invoke and proclaim the same Jesus Christ that any so-called "mainstream" Christian church does, and they are theologically closer to orthodoxy than many other cults that are sometimes described as pseudo-Christian. Indeed, I submit they are by definition a Christian denomination or sect. They claim the title of the church; therefore, those of us who are Christians, who know and profess to be under God's grace through Jesus Christ, must evaluate it according to the standards of the church. We must suppress our tendency to evaluate according to the whims and influence of the human society surrounding us, but instead look to the Bible for guidance.
However, that said, we must ourselves, at the same time, treat them as Christian brothers and sisters. If indeed they do ridicule Christians who do not follow their movement, if they do indeed isolate themselves and gloat over their self-proclaimed highest truth, if indeed they condition their members to believe in and fight for the group's self-proclaimed role as the one true church, the "high peak of God's revelation", and "God's sole move on the earth today," is it right for us to respond by behaving in the same way towards them? Perhaps, globally speaking, the worst effect that cults have had on the Christian community has not been the proliferation of alternate "truths," nor the psychological damage done to individuals, nor even the loss of credibility of the church in the eyes of the secular world. Instead, I believe the worst effect has been that the church itself has learned the very art of hatred that it condemns within the cults, that we are participating in the escalating cult versus counter-cult struggle that threatens to stifle any chance of bringing God's grace and healing power to bear on our differences. While we cannot ignore groups like the "Local Churches," we cannot dispassionately and unilaterally condemn them either. What is our proper response?
