Apologetics Answers

Response from an "unarmed man"

2005-04-10T09:59:00.000-04:00

Christian Apologist Anton Willem Hein has now deemed me an "unarmed man" in a "battle of wits" and a person whose comments "take on shades of cyberstalking," as noted below:

From Anton Hein's Web site entry about yours truly: "Sites... Mark Kellner's weblog. Kellner says the blog is where his 'shares his views of the current state of Christian apologetics, religious liberty and related issues'. However, the weblog appears to have been set up because Mr. Kellner was denied a forum elsewhere, and thus far (August 2003 through Jan, 2005) has been used almost exclusively to 'answer' people he cannot and/or will not answer elsewhere. The blog does serve to demonstate why Mr. Kellner is not considered to be an apologist. It also illustrates Mr. Kellner's usual approach:

* fail to properly address the issues,

* don't pay attention to what people say, and

* instead change the subject (preferably by using straw men)

As noted before, for reasons known only to him, Mr. Kellner appears to have taken a special interest in agitating against messages posted by the co-publisher of Apologetics Index. He simply doesn't get the message: as the saying goes, I'm not interested in a battle of wits with an unarmed person - particularly not when it appears that his pompous ponderings now take on the shades of cyberstalking."

I'm glad Mr. Hein is interested in what I have to say -- even if he won't accept my e-mails to him, or allow me to post to his "ApoloTalk" forum or has campaigned to block me from posting to the AR-Talk and AR-Forum lists (I have a copy of his e-mail). He even (sob) cut me off from his self-promoting ministry e-mails. (By the way, can anyone tell me which of these tactics, or equivalent ones, were undertaken by Jesus or the apostles?)

Of course, this is the same Anton Willem Hein who has yet to fulfill his promise -- made more than a year ago -- to respond to my Liberty magazine article about the controvesial book "Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions," which is the subject of a $136 million libel suit in the state of Texas. Mr. Hein thought that article to have all sorts of errors and false statements; so far, he hasn't demonstrated any. Since Mr. Hein is fond of quoting American aphorisms, let me use one to describe his unfulfilled claim: Anton Hein is, in this instance at least, "all hat and no cattle," as the noted thinker Trace Adkins would say.

In short, Mr. Hein is interested in promoting his views and defending them in sites and forums he controls, without the bother of opposing questions and, yes, honest criticism. This is far different from most fields of endeavor, particularly in the scholarly realm, where positions are examined, often strenuously, but the participants can remain civil at the end of the day.

Mr. Hein now accuses me of being "unarmed" in a "battle of wits," and of showing "shades of cyberstalking."

Like Mr. Hein, I respond to e-mails that I receive. (Unlike Mr. Hein, I don't block people from e-mailing me, or threaten harassment charges against people who do e-mail me.) Like Mr. Hein, I'll page through Web sites (e.g., John Gorenfeld's) and/or use Google and other resources to document my claims and -- yes -- opinions. (Please note that, contrary to Mr. Hein's assertions, "Apologetics Answers" is an opinion/analysis blog, and nothing more -- so far, at least.)

If that behavior -- research, analysis and commentary -- is showing "shades of cyberstalking," then there are several million people in the United States alone who do something similar, on their blogs, every day. Some of them brought out errors committed by major media figures, politicians, and so forth. It's called free speech, Mr. Hein -- something you claim the Netherlands supports more than the United States does.

Mr. Hein has made two other statements worthy of comment: He claims that I linked to his Web page about the "ad hominem" charges against him solely from my posting abou John Gorenfeld's e-mail to me (see below). Mr. Hein is wrong: scan the "Apologetics Answers" page and you'll see that I linked there from my comments about his non-delivery of a "promised response" to the Liberty article referenced earlier.

Anton Hein believes that my linking to the page about his background (which conveniently includes one disclaimer in ultra-small type that a reader must enlarge -- so much for candor and transparency!) says more about me than it does about him. Maybe. But if Mr. Hein is going to malign people who defend their religious freedom (Art. 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, perhaps sadly for Mr. Hein, contains no distinction between the religions one approves and those one disapproves), I can only hope there will be many people willing to challenge those assertions, and to do so online.

It's very sad that Anton Hein takes after me and after those whose opinions differ from him, with his own brand of "ad-hominem" (if using the phrase "a battle of wits with an unarmed man" in reference to me is isn't ad hominem, would someone tell me what is?) instead of engaging the issues.

(By way of comparison, an apologetics site that attracts more viewers than Mr. Hein's "Apologetics Index" -- without engaging in personal attacks on critics -- is the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, as can be seen here [as of April 11, 2005]. Please note, however, that this comparison is for illustration only; I do not, sad to say, agree with everything at the CARM Web site.)

I look forward to the day when Anton and I can sit down and have a friendly chat, respecting each other's differences and talking on the basis of facts. But Mr. Hein prefers to slam me for not strenuously agreeing with his positions. All hat and no cattle, indeed!

I Win the "Extraordinarily Silly Gentleman" Award from John Gorenfeld

2005-03-26T22:54:00.000-05:00

LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARILY SILLY GENTLEMEN: John Gorenfeld (above, as seen on www.gorenfeld.net) considers Mark Kellner an "extraordinarily silly gentleman," but the usually verbose Mr. G won't say why.

The e-mail arrived in my mailbox with no fanfare, just an intriguing subject line: "You are an extraordinarily silly gentleman."

The message text:

"Yours sincerely,

--
John Gorenfeld"

along with his Web address, phone and fax numbers and street address, all of which are omitted here, for obvious reasons.

I shot back a question: "To what do I owe this honor?" And I waited about 24 hours. Mr. Gorenfeld, a journalist who seems to claim a rather prolific output, hasn't responded.

I suppose he doesn't like my comments about Anton Willem Hein, who has approvingly quoted Mr. Gorenfeld's ad hominem attacks on a United States Government official, Amb. Josette Shiner of the U.S. Trade Representative's office. Ms. Shiner, you see, is a former Managing Editor of The Washington Times (disclosure: I'm in my 15th year as a freelance weekly computer columnist there) and a former member of the Unification Church. Mr. Gorenfeld, perhaps forgetting that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Art. 1, Section VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States (scroll down to find the clause), felt it necessary to spread word of Ms. Shiner's apparently former religious views to all who'd listen, including the aforementioned Mr. Hein.

Most recently, Mr. Gorenfeld posted a short smirk to note that Ms. Shiner will not ascend to the top position in the USTR's office. Whatever her reactions, I would personally suggest that Josette Shiner, an acquaintance and a person of great integrity, has already achieved far more in her life than John Gorenfeld is ever likely to accomplish.

Ms. Shiner has long stood for freedom and human rights and has practiced exceptional journalism in many situations, not the least being a memorable interview with the late Kim Il Sung [corrected, Apr. 11, 2005], this despite her well-known anti-Communist stance. Mr. Gorenfeld has, well, picked on a girl, and called me silly.

I'll stand with Josette Shiner any day of the week, even though I'll also happily defend Mr. Gorenfeld's freedom of speech.

Post Script: Mr. Gorenfeld has responded on his blog, which I suppose is easier than responding to an e-mail. He says that I "misread" the attack on Ms. Shiner as religiously based. Perhaps, but Mr. Gorenfeld should remember that others, such as Anton Willem Hein, picked up on Mr. G's screed; Mr. Hein's primary interest is in religious matters.

And if Mr. Gorenfeld, as he now claims, was merely interested in whether Ms. Shiner retained earlier political-social views, WHY DIDN'T HE SAY THIS UNTIL AFTER MY COMMENTS WERE POSTED? (For those wondering, yes, I've e-mailed Mr. G asking this same question.)

Again, Mr. Gorenfeld has freedom of speech, and I'll defend it. I just wish he'd be clear, and up front about his motives and concerns.

Anton Hein's Failure -- Will He Now Back Down?

2005-03-25T18:26:00.000-05:00

More than a year ago -- as seen in the unchanged e-mail below, quoted elsewhere in this Weblog, Anton Willem Hein, formerly of San Diego and currently, it is to be presumed, of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, has had more than 365 days to live up to what he said:

">-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark A. Kellner [mailto:mark@kellner.us]
>Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:49 AM
>To: AR-forum@apologia.org
>Subject: Re: [AR-forum] Hein's 'engagement' of Kellner's facts and data

>I'll repeat: If Mr. Hein cannot document his charges, he
>should have the decency to withdraw them.

Mr. Kellner, thou protests [sic] too much. As I have already indicated, your material will be dealt with in time. I will show it to be in error, full of logical fallacies and wrong conclusions, an example of shoddy apologetics, and an attack on Christians. You'll just have to exhibit some patience and self-control."

So far as I have been able to determine, Mr. Hein has utterly, completely and totally failed to document his claim, and his charges against me over my article in Liberty magazine concerning the Local Churches and their libel action against Harvest House Publishers and authors John Ankerberg and John Weldon.

Nor have I seen any evidence of Mr. Hein's having the decency to withdraw his charges, let alone admit that my arguments may -- just may -- have some merit.

Perhaps Mr. Hein will want to take refuge in the saying of Mark McGwire, the former St. Louis Cardinals baseball player, who admonished the U.S. Congress that he (McGwire) was "not here to talk about the past."

Is this Anton Hein's latest response?

2005-01-10T21:37:00.000-05:00

Following a sincere (at least on my part) exchange with the venerable Anton Willem Hein of Amsterdam on the AR-Talk and AR-Forum lists, I found the following bon mot from Mr. Hein in my Gmail.com mailbox this evening:

Gmail - You have been unsubscribed from the ainewsletter mailing list

... and that's all he wrote. No explanation. No comment. Nothing. Just "hasta la vista, Kellner." And, no, I did not ask Mr. Hein to unsubscribe me.

Mr. Hein, who previously banished me from his ApoloTalk forum, now is cutting off my receipt of his self-promoting "ministry newsletter" for the Apologetics Index Web site he operates.

Instead of engaging the facts presented, instead of even considering that he may be mistaken in such tactics as presenting John Gorenfeld's screed against long-departed Washington Times managing editor Josette Shiner as an apologetics "resource," Mr. Hein chooses to circle the wagons, raise the drawbridge and lower the gate of Castle Anton. (Did I mention, before, that Mr. Hein has set up his computer to block e-mails from me? And that he has publicly said he would consider any attempt to e-mail him as "harassment"? Surely Mr. Hein, who claims to have once been employed by computer publishing giant Ziff-Davis, and who operates multiple Web sites, knows what the "delete" button on a computer does. But I digress.)

Christians are supposed to be notable for their openness and transparency: Jesus of Nazareth never had an e-mail filter, never cut anyone off his newsletter list, and indeed told the Pharisees and Sanhedrin leaders who sought his capture that he had taught openly in public daily, obviating their need to seize him at night.

Mr. Hein, on the other hand, is now presenting a facade of openness and accessibility, while limiting access from those who dare question his positions and conclusions, particularly when his views challenge that most basic of freedoms, the freedom of religious belief and expression. What, do you suppose, would Jesus do in a similar situation?

Coming Soon: Anton Hein Tells All (About Kellner's article, that is...)

2004-03-18T10:18:00.000-05:00

For the third time in less than three weeks, Anton Hein of Apologetics Index has refused to answer my challenge concerning his accusations against me. Mr. Hein claims that my article in Liberty magazine "falsely accuses the brethren" and contains "gross misrepresentations."

I've asked -- three times now -- for examples. So far, Mr. Hein's contribution has been ZERO.

But don't worry, sports fans, Mr. Hein may yet change his ways and actually substantiate his claims. Note the following post from AR-Forum:

===begin excerpt===
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark A. Kellner [mailto:mark@kellner.us]
>Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:49 AM
>To: AR-forum@apologia.org
>Subject: Re: [AR-forum] Hein's "engagement" of Kellner's facts and data

>I'll repeat: If Mr. Hein cannot document his charges, he
>should have the decency to withdraw them.

Mr. Kellner, thou protests [sic] too much. As I have already indicated, your material will be dealt with in time. I will show it to be in error, full of logical fallacies and wrong conclusions, an example of shoddy apologetics, and an attack on Christians. You'll just have to exhibit some patience and self-control.

For now, your approach is well-covered in this Apologetics Index entry:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/k04.html

For reasons explained there, I will not respond in this forum to further communication from you on this matter. Again, please give it a rest and allow these forums to be used for the purpose they are intended for.

Anton
--
Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson
Apologetics Index
Research resources on religions, cults, sects, doctrines, and related issues:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com (News and news archives)
http://www.apologeticsindex.org (Other research resources)
===end excerpt===

I anxiously await Mr. Hein's response. It should make for interesting reading.

Meanwhile, however, other apologists and interested observers will not be able to offer their comments on Mr. Hein's posted positions, or mine. Co-moderator Steve Hogel has "called" discussion on the topic.

Therefore, an offer to anyone who reads these words. Send me an e-mail, in confidence, and I'll consider your comments -- pro-Kellner or anti-Kellner -- for publication and response.

Is that fair enough?

Good News: Mr. Hein updates and expands his quote from my article on his "Seventh-day Adventism" Web Page

2004-03-16T21:50:00.000-05:00

Anyone who has followed some of my backing-and-forthing with Anton Hein, owner/publisher of Apologetics Index, know that I have long been distressed that he had quoted PART of my Sept. 2000 Christianity Today magazine article on the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but not the relevant countervailing quote. He had quoted my report of a General Conference Session 2000 resolution about the ministry of Ellen G. White, but neglected to quote the then-newly-elected president of the Adventist Church in North America, Pastor Don Schneider, as saying the Adventist Church did -- and does -- put the Bible first and foremost.

Mr. Hein has now changed his mind, apparently, and I appreciate the way he quotes me now:

===begin excerpt===
Seventh-day Adventism - Apologetics research resources on religious cults and sects: "Even Seventh-day Adventists themselves understand that certain things set them apart from historical Christianity:
In a move almost certain to invite the scrutiny of evangelical apologists, the 57th General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church voted July 2 ''to intensify efforts to inform all church members, especially young members, about the gift of prophecy through the ministry of Ellen G. White.''

White, who was one of the leading figures in the founding of the church, has remained a controversial figure in Adventism since her death in 1915. While describing her own writings as ''the lesser light'' leading to the ''greater light'' of the Bible, the promotion of her writings by the church has stirred charges of cultism against the group.

According to a report by the Adventist News Network, several delegates registered discomfort with the resolution: 'Is there any resolution with similar wording that deals with the Bible?' asked Jurrien den Hollander, an Adventist pastor from the Netherlands. Hollander's motion for such a resolution was voted and referred to committee.

And, said Don C. Schneider, a 57-year-old Adventist leader from Berrien Springs, Mich., who was just elected to head the church's North American Division, while some outside the group may question the resolution's meaning, Adventist church leaders line up behind the Bible as their source of doctrine.

'There's a very clear understanding here that Seventh-day Adventists believe in the Bible, and our faith comes out of the Bible,' Schneider told CT in an interview. 'There's no question among the group here.'

Schneider, who had been in charge of one of church activities in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and WiscWisconsin, added that he would gladly explain the group's position to any apologists or others who have questions.

"I'd be most pleased to tell anyone about my priorities of the Bible ahead of anyone else," he said.
Mark Kellner, "Adventist Church Reaffirms 'Gift of Prophecy' , Christianity Today, July 7, 2000 (Author is a Seventh-day Adventist)

(NOTE: Mark Kellner - who authored the above-quoted article some 30 months before he became the assistant director for news and information for the SDA's General Conference Communications Department - wants to make sure people read his entire article at the URL provided. He has been made aware of the fact that - as a matter of policy - Apologetics Index is specifically designed to encourage indepth research.)"
==end excerpt==

I do wish Mr. Hein would take a kinder view of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and I most certainly wish he'd have a few more "pro" Internet links to balance the "contra" ones which seem to support his arguments. But his willingness to take even this step is appreciated by this writer, even if I have been critical of some of his comments in times past.

Thank you, Mr. Hein, for doing this.

Redacto Ad 'Footnoteum,' or Anton Hein on "Mark Kellner - religious cults, sects, and related issues"

2004-03-16T21:37:00.000-05:00

I appreciate Anton Hein's work on many levels. It's just that I don't agree with some of his views, and, as it should be apparent to readers here, with his views on how religious liberty should be granted and/or withheld. Mr. Hein, in the item below (a new footnote on his page about yours truly), makes what I'd consider a snide comment: that I "waited" more or less seven months to note a discrepancy. He also says he "in no way" had "meant" to "slight" Christianity Today magazine by saying their giving me a small honor in 1996 was "probably a mistake" since I am (since 1999) a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

While I am grateful for Mr. Hein's correction and explanation, he still misses some key points. Claiming, as he previously did, that a magazine with a large editorial staff and a five-decade tradition of accuracy had "probably" not verified in 1996 which church I was a member of, is a slam against the magazine. At least I, as a former senior editor, news editor and editor-in-chief of technology trade magazines, would view it as such.

Mr. Hein also doesn't like some of my words, or perhaps my tone. I'll try to do better, but surely Mr. Hein's experience in Amsterdam with all sorts of "cultists" and members of world religions should have toughened him against a few verbal barbs. I don't believe I have engaged in personal insult against Mr. Hein; I have been a critic of some of his views and statements, but not of him personally.

I hope I'm misreading Mr. Hein's last comment as shown below. He made a mistake. I called him on it. He corrected it, and I'm grateful. But that doesn't alter my opinion that his initial comment was unfair to CT. (By the way, had he e-mailed CT, they might well have provided him with a suitable answer. Then again, had he e-mailed me, I would have happily answered him as well.)

Mark Kellner - religious cults, sects, and related issues: "Footnotes --- Note 1: Previously - from the initial publication of this page on Aug. 11, 2003 until the Mar. 8, 2004 update - the statement read as follows: 'In 1996, Christianity Today named Kellner as one of '50 Leading Evangelicals Under 40.' This was probably a mistake, given the fact that he is a Seventh-day Adventist....'

Though that statement was first posted on Aug. 11, 2003, Mark Kellner waited until Mar. 8, 2004 to note that this was incorrect. He did so on the AR-talk list, where he suggested I should have 'recalled' that he joined that list in 1999, after he had joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

True to form, on his web log, Mr. Kellner describes the 'ERROR' (which he also refers to as 'a shot of bile') as follows: Along with attempting to slime me, Mr. Hein takes a pot shot at Christianity Today magazine.

For the record, the statement was in no way meant as a slight on Christianity Today, which we consider to be a fine publication.

The publishers of Apologetics Index thank Mr. Kellner for illustrating by way of his online behavior the need for this page. "

Hein to correct error re Kellner

2004-03-08T13:34:00.000-05:00

In a follow-up post to AR-Talk, Mr. Hein writes the following:

"The 'ERROR,' posted on Aug. 11, 2003, will be corrected later tonight (CET)."

I am grateful that Mr. Hein will undertake this and look forward to seeing the result online.

Mr. Hein's "Index" on Kellner: Correcting an Error

2004-03-08T13:18:00.000-05:00

Anton Hein, who claims "29+ years" in apologetics and counter-cult ministry (which means, given that he was born in 1957, he had been doing this since about the age of 17), has added a shot of bile to his Apologetics Index entry on "Mark Kellner," which is available online at http://www.apologeticsindex.org/k04.html.

He writes: "In 1996, Christianity Today named Kellner as one of '50 Leading Evangelicals Under 40.' This was probably a mistake, given the fact that he is a Seventh-day Adventist (Kellner is the assistant director for news and information for the SDA's General Conference Communications Department)."

Unfortunately, as I pointed out on AR-Talk, Mr. Hein is wrong in this statement, and he should know it. In 1996 (and, indeed, from July 1982 through April of 1999), I was a lay church member of The Salvation Army, or the "Leger des Heils," as it is known in Mr. Hein's homeland of the Netherlands. The Salvation Army is almost universally recognized as an evangelical church, hence, the kind designation CT gave me was thoroughly in order.

Mr. Hein should have known this because he should recall that my activity on the AR-lists began in 1999, after I had joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Mr. Hein, among others, considers the Seventh-day Adventist Church to be a (his term) "cult of Christianity." Other apologetics leaders, including the late Dr. Walter R. Martin and the current Chrisitan Research Institute, do not.

Along with attempting to slime me, Mr. Hein takes a pot shot at Christianity Today magazine. It's sad that Mr. Hein can see little merit in my work, opinions or arguments, since I do see some value in his work, and even occasionally merit in some of his arguments. It's truly sad that he has to throw mud on an exemplary Christian magazine in the process.

Post Scriptum: Mr. Hein, on the AR-lists, objected to my using the word "Psychic" below to describe my opinion of his apparent ability to divine my views as expressed in Liberty magazine -- without his having read the article. For any reader who is unclear, my use of the word was not to suggest that Mr. Hein engages in ANY occult practice. Rather, it's a cynical comment that could be taken as satirical. Both forms of expression, particularly about a public person as Mr. Hein is (and as I am), are apprently protected in the United States of America by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Oddly enough, that same amendment would appear to ban "anti-sect laws" in this country, as opposed to France, where religious freedom for more than the odd Scientologist or Jehovah's Witness is under legislative attack.

Anton Hein: Evangelical "Psychic"?

2004-02-25T15:55:00.000-05:00

In his latest post to the AR-Talk lists, as well as his Web site comments about me, Anton Hein seems to adopt the role of an Evangelical "psychic," able to divine my thoughts, opinions and conclusions from a brief posting to the list, to wit:

"An article I’ve written about the controversial book “Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions” appears in the March/April 2004 issue of LIBERTY Magazine, a bi-monthly religious freedom publication of the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It should be available on the magazine’s Web site, http://www.libertymagazine.org, shortly.

"For those who can’t wait for the Web — or don’t want to — I’m happy to send a free PDF file of the article and the issue cover. The scan is less-than-perfect (which I shall try to fix later today), but still readable. All who e-mail me OFF LIST are welcome to a copy.

"Mark Kellner
"mark (at ) kellner.us
"http://www.kellner.us"
===end of post===

Mr. Hein, in response, writes the following on AR-TALK:

===begin quote===
For the background to Mark Kellner's activism in favor of the Local
Church/Lord's Recovery, and against the _Encyclopedia of Cults and News
Religions_, by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, see:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l40.html#harvesthouse

and

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/k04.html

The book is, of course, controversial only in the eyes of the Local Church -
a cult of Christianity with a track record of legal threats.

Copies of the book can still be purchased via Amazon.com:
http://tinyurl.com/jln5

I heartily recommend this resource, and suggest you buy it before the
intolerance and ill-advised behavior of cults and their defenders makes it
impossible.
===end quote===

Mr. Hein's certainty -- that ECNR is *only* controversial to those who are members of the Local Churches (which I am not, by the way) -- is an astonishing leap of thought that presumes near omnipotence on his part. Can ANYONE else find the book controvesial? Or do they have to join the Local Church first?

Also, Mr. Hein asserts that it is MERELY the "intolerance and ill-advised behavior of the cults and their apologists" that will cause this book to go off sale. That would obliterate the possibility that: (a) the book is (in my opinion and perhaps that of others) a poorly written, poorly edited product; (b) that it contains libelous statements which will be found as such in a court of law and (c) that under the rule of law there may be penalties extracted. Nope -- none of these will apply. Rather, it's just the all-powerful "cults" and "their apologists," to which latter group Mr. Hein has elected me. (I can't be a dedicated journalist, I suppose, or a defender of human rights and religious freedom. No, sir, Mr. Hein says I can only be a cult apologist.)

As mentioned before in this blog, Mr. Hein -- who sets his own rules and standards for what is and isn't "kosher" to him apologetically -- has decided both on the matter of ECNR and the Local Church. Nothing will persuade him, it appears, and he doesn't even have to examine the issues at hand to render -- or retain -- his viewpoint.

That's not exactly a "Berean" attitude (Acts 17:11,NIV), is it? More important, is it how Mr. Hein would want others to judge him and his views?

Oddly enough, Jesus of Nazareth had some words which Mr. Hein might want to ponder: "Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults--unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own." (Matt. 7:1-3, The Message, online at http://tinyurl.com/yv5f8)

Answering Rafael Martinez: One of (perhaps) a series

2003-12-08T10:18:00.000-05:00

In a post to AR-Forum, Rev. Rafael Martinez of the "Tennessee Valley Bible Students" makes the following statement in response to one of my comments:

"Only the paranoiac mindset of a litigious cult group seeking lots of $ to float it's abusive, authoritarian and antichristian backside out of the red ink of desolation it's brought upon itself through shoddy PR that failed miserably would resort to that kind of thinking you seem to be defending." (Spelling and punctuation as in original.)

Mr. Martinez is rarely without opinions. This one, however, is rather astounding. From what I've seen in visiting their facilities and meeting with their leaders, the Local Church, Living Stream Ministry and associated groups are doing well enough, financially, without having to raise outside capital. But even if they did, the longshot of a libel suit seems a stunningly ineffective way to make money, given the up-front costs and no guarantee of success, or even of collecting money from the "losing" side.

Is it possible that the plaintiffs in this case -- having been pre-emptively sued by Harvest House first -- are merely trying to defend their good name? Or would that be too simple an answer?

A clarification re "Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions"

2003-12-08T10:08:00.000-05:00

In a post to AR-Forum, one of the AR lists, I mistakenly said the following in reference to the "Encyclopedia of Cultus and New Religions," a controversial book written by John Ankerberg and John Weldon and published by Harvest House.

I had posted the following:

"As mentioned in the Christianity Today news article that I wrote, the concern is that the Ankerberg/Weldon book could be used as justification by government agencies and officials to prosecute (or persecute) members of the Local Church on the grounds that an 'authoritative' publication has deemed them a 'cult.'"

Ron Henzel of Midwest Christian Outreach questioned whether I was referring to the United States as the place where such prosecution would take place and if so, to name the jurisdiction. I wrote back and said no, I was thinking of nations such as China, which has already cited France's "anti-sect" laws as justification for prosecuting members of the Falun Gong sect.

However, in reviewing my CT article about the Local Church and the ECNR book, I found that the point cited above was NOT mentioned in the CT piece. My apologies to all concerned.

Anton Hein on "Fair and Balanced" Reporting

2003-08-12T23:31:00.000-04:00

Writing on Apologetics Index, "co-publisher" Anton Hein states the following about your friendly neighborhood Blogger -- me:

"I did not claim that Mr. Kellner ignored the Local Church's cultic behavior, but said "it appears you fail to acknowledge and/or understand" that behavior:

"Mark Kellner's failure to acknowledge and/or understand

"a) the Local Church's lengthy record of legal threats,
"b) and its status as - theologically - a cult of Christianity, and
"c) its record of cultic behavior

has been addressed on the AR-lists before. I feel no need to enter into a discussion with him on these issues.

"That said, if Mr. Kellner wishes to support the Local Church in its theology and behavior, Christian apologists and countercult professionals should take note of this.

"If he merely wants to report on the issues, it is my hope and prayer that he familiarizes himself a) with sound theology, and b) with the history of the conflicts he chooses to write about.

"Source: AR-forum, msg by Anton Hein, Aug. 10, 2003

"Mark Kellner's news article about the Local Church's legal action against Harvest House, John Ankerberg and John Weldon lacks sufficient balance. Mark's opinion on the issue is evident from the details he leaves out."

Let's look at the facts:

1) Mr. Hein seems to believe that the only way to report a set of facts is if that report agrees with his thinking. So much for the concept of two sides to every story.

2) Mr. Hein says my CT article "lacks sufficient balance." Well, I quote several people who oppose the Local Church, cite the Ankerberg/Weldon book's main complaints about the group, and made repeated attempts to get a comment from Ankerberg or Harvest House, the publisher. Neither Ankerberg nor Harvest House responded with substantive comments to these requests; Harvest House -- in a friendly way, I must say -- just said "no comment." That's their privilege, but I can't put words in Harvest House's mouth.

3) Mr. Hein has settled on the matter for himself, and so it appears that, for him, there can be no other opinion. I am willing to be persuaded, however it has to be on facts, not emotion. It should also be on current information, not decades-old materials. And it should follow the old Christian dictum (attributed to Augustine), "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity."

Who do you think you are, Mr. Kellner?

2003-08-12T23:11:00.000-04:00

Continuing his critique of this Blog and its contents, Apologetics Index "co-publisher" Anton Hein says this:

" In apologetics and countercult circles Kellner - who is neither an apologist nor a countercult professional - is known primarily for his partipation on the AR-talk and AR-forum lists, where Kellner:

"-- identifies himself as a Seventh-day Adventist (Kellner is the assistant director for news and information for the SDA's General Conference Communications Department).

"-- defends religious cults under the banner of 'religious freedom,' and/or
as a result of his apparent lack of theological discernment.

"-- agitates against the reporting of U.S. human rights issues as noted in Religion News Blog."

(Source: Apologetics Index "Mark Kellner" page, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/k04.html)

Some quick responses:

A) First and FOREMOST, as noted at the top of this site, the opinions expressed here are solely mine. This Blog is NOT affiliated with any church, publication, denomination or entity. I am a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (http://www.adventist.org for those interested in information) and am employed by the Church's world headquarters. But again, the views expressed here are representative only of the writer. (And, by the way, Seventh-day Adventists ARE Christians, and certainly ones of the evangelical stripe!)

B) Mr. Hein says I am "neither an apologist nor a countercult professional." True. But I've written enough about religion and religious topics (for Christianity Today and other publications) that I feel as competent to comment on these topics as Mr. Hein apparently does. Fortunately for me, there is no professional license needed to make these comments.

C) The roots of Anton Hein's opposition to the human rights policies of the United States of America (not to mention internal justice matters, America's foreign policy and self-defense) are far too complex to discuss here. But when he says that I am someone who "agitates against the reporting of U.S. human rights issues as noted in Religion News Blog," which is another Hein-sponsored Web site, he only tells half the story, if that much.

Those of us who believe -- and again, these are my personal beliefs here, though many others may share them -- those of us who believe that the freedoms enjoyed in the United States are worth not only promoting but defending have been distressed by the drumbeat of anti-American stories Mr. Hein posts to the AR-Talk list under cover of "Religion News Blog." As with any editor, Mr. Hein has the right to select the stories he likes. But when people respond, negatively, and with countervailing information, Mr. Hein's hackles are raised. How odd!

D) Mr. Hein laments that in my AR-Talk and AR-Forum postings, I am someone who "defends religious cults under the banner of 'religious freedom.'" Oh my! Mr. Hein forgets that the European Declaration of Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- documents to which his much-touted Netherlands are signatories -- guarantees the right of people to practice, promote and change their religion without coercion by the state.

Mr. Hein labors mightily against the so-called "slippery slope" argument epitomized, I believe, by German pastor Martin Niemoeller's formulation:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

-- by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945 (Source: http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Politics/niemoller.shtml)

But we've seen the truth of this "slippery slope" time and time again. Mr. Hein, in essence, has said he expects persecution because he is a Christian, and that's fair enough. But I see nothing -- not one word, not one sentence -- in which I as a Christian am commanded to allow or encourage the rise of such persecution. Indeed, as a good citizen, I am required to make my voice heard so that the rights of all might be protected.

Mr. Hein failed to note that I am a "nice Jewish boy" from Rego Park, Queens, New York, who found Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah. He also omits the fact (shared with him several times) that half of my father's extended family in Europe died in the Shoah. As such, I am personally committed to not seeing that happen again, to anyone, which is why I defend religious freedom for all.

Can Mr. Hein think of a good reason not to? Can YOU?

Why Apologetics Answers? (or, "The Hasty Publishing Club")

2003-08-12T22:42:00.000-04:00

Anton Hein, noted "co-publisher" of Apologetics Index, responded to the first message on this board with a rather lengthy post, including the following:

"Faced with criticism from Anton Hein, the co-publisher of Apologetics Index (and the author of this web page), Kellner defends his views on a hastily published weblog, ironically called 'Apologetics Answers.'"

Well, everyone's a critic, as the saying goes. Mr. Hein failed to mention that he has asked me for years to "publish" my own Web site. I set up a Weblog as quickly as possible since he denied posting (on his Apolotalk list) my response to his comments, and now he faults the speed and my choice of titles.

There is, oddly enough, an irony here. Mr. Hein regularly rails against a certain religious group -- he calls them "a commercial enterprise that masquerades as a religion, and that increasingly acts like a hate group" -- which may complain when its names are used by others, since those names are registered trademarks. Yet, he feels no compunction in blasting my choice of a title for this Blog, specifically "Apologetics Answers." (And, for the record, neither "Apologetics" nor "Answers" appear to be registered trademarks of Anton Hein.)

Inasmuch as I am a working professional, this Blog is a personal endeavor and I do it as quickly and inexpensively as possible. Perhaps I can develop a site as complex and well developed as Mr. Hein's at some point in the future. For now, I would want to have this judged on the merits of its content.

Your comments and questions are welcome via e-mail: mark@kellner.us.

Why Apologetics Matters ...

2003-08-12T19:27:00.000-04:00

The recent confirmation of the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson as a bishop in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America raised many eyebrows -- and many questions. One wing of that church views moral law, apparently, as fungible: strictures on certain behaviors are no longer valid, despite affirmation in both the Old and New Testaments. Another segment of Episcopalians view the Robinson vote as a rebellion against the tenets of Biblical Christianity.

This is but one example of where apologetics -- defending the faith -- is important. Those questioning the moves within the Episcopal Church need clear guidance on what the Bible defines as acceptable conduct for a minister in a church, or for a lay member as well. By pointing to the Bible standard, versus the flexible doctrines of the moment, apologists can perform a valuable service.

Answering Anton Hein's Charges

2003-08-12T14:43:00.000-04:00

...about my Christianity Today magazine news article on the Local Church and the lawsuit involving Harvest House Publishers and authors John Ankerberg and John Weldon.

An article by Mark A. Kellner (bio online at http://www.kellner.us/bio.html)

>>Note: An "interactive" version of this article, featuring live links, can be found at http://www.tinyurl.com/jonn <<

In re-reading Mr. Hein's last public AR-Forum posting on the subject, I came across what is apparently one of his main charges concerning the CT article, to wit:

“...in my opinion your current attempt to rush to the aid of yet another religious cult is ill-advised in that it appears you fail to acknowledge and/or understand:
a) the Local Church's lengthy record of legal threats,
b) and its status as - theologically - a cult of Christianity, and
c) its record of cultic behavior”

Source: Anton Hein's posting on AR-Talk, 10 August 2003; sadly, such posts are not available via Web access at this time, so far as I can determine.

It may be worth reading the following excerpts from the article, "Local Church Fights for Evangelical ID Card: Witness Lee group sues for $136 million over Harvest House cults article," as it appears in the February issue of Christianity Today. (Nota Bene: Mr. Hein cites this as the "Jan. 14, 2003 issue" when in fact that was merely the date on which the article was posted to CT's Web site. The correct reference is the February 2003 issue.)

(1) Mr. Hein first alleges that I “fail to acknowledge and/or understand" what he terms "the Local Church's lengthy record of legal threats.”

FACT: My article is abundantly clear about this track record:

===begin excerpt===
Going to court

Indeed, the current libel suit is not a first for the group. The Local Church previously sued Thomas Nelson Publishers over The Mind Benders (1977), which former Campus Crusade for Christ worker Jack Sparks wrote. It also sued the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) over the German edition of Neil Duddy's The God-Men . Both volumes, now out of print, extensively criticized Local Church teachings and practices.

Thomas Nelson settled out of court with the Local Church and published a retraction in 1983. SCP fared worse. Duddy left the United States reportedly because of legal pressures related to the suit. SCP declared bankruptcy. Subsequently, a judge ruled that the book was libelous and awarded $11.9 million to the Local Church. SCP was able to pay only $34,000. In the current suit, Living Stream and the Local Church are seeking $20 million each. In addition, 96 local fellowships are seeking $1 million each. The group said that it is suing because extensive attempts at mediation with the authors and publisher have failed.

Harvest House Publishers, based in Eugene, Oregon, had unsuccessfully sued the Local Church in 2001. The publisher asked an Oregon court to declare that the Ankerberg/Weldon book "has not defamed" the group. On March 15, 2002, a Lane County, Oregon, circuit court judge ruled the court had no jurisdiction over the Local Church. The judge dismissed the suit "with prejudice," meaning it could not be re-filed. Harvest House declined comment for this article.
===end excerpt ===

(2) Mr. Hein then claims that I “fail to acknowledge and/or understand" the Local Church's "...status as -- theologically -- a cult of Christianity.”

FACT: The article does not support Mr. Hein's claim:

===begin excerpt===
Subtle in error?

Ankerberg and Weldon do not critique the anti-denominational teaching of Lee as such. In the encyclopedia's doctrinal appendix (cited in the lawsuit), the authors say, "All cults and religions deny the unique incarnation of [Christ] the Second Person of the Godhead." The article on the Local Church cited the movement's "mystical approach" and "claims of new revelation" as examples of its "occult potential."

The article says the Local Church wrongly believes that elect Christians "become God by their union and communion with him." Ankerberg, who for 20 years has broadcast weekly TV discussions of Mormonism, the Masonic Lodge, Silva Mind Control, and other belief systems, declined an interview for this article.

In interviews with CT , Living Stream President Benson Phillips and Local Church Elder Daniel E. Towle said Local Church leaders do not teach that believers can "become God as God is God." Rather, Towle said, a believer becomes a God-man only "in the sense of regeneration and sanctification."

Witness Lee, in a 1994 video message quoted in a recent Local Church brochure, said, "God became man that man may become God." The group calls this "the greatest truth in the whole Bible." Phillips said Lee's statement was based on a quotation from the early church father Athanasius: "He [God] became man that we might become God." Believers become, according to Witness Lee, "God in his life and in his nature, but not in his godhead."

Phillips told CT , "We believe God is triune, distinct in persons, but not separate. In his move through time, the Son was sent to Earth. We believe the three are eternally co-existing and co-inhere."

But E. Calvin Beisner, a theology and ethics professor at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, remains skeptical of the Local Church. He first studied the group in the 1970s. "They have become more subtle in their error, and therefore all the more likely to get people thinking that they are orthodox, when in fact they are not.

"They claim to be Christian, but certain elements of their teaching are contradictory to, and not just tangential to, defining truths of the Christian faith."

In a March 2002 letter, Beisner—who is cited about a dozen times in the Harvest House encyclopedia—said that in his opinion the Local Church:
-- "Insists that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit."

-- "Goes far beyond the Eastern Orthodox concept" in its deification teachings.
-- Has a tendency to sue its critics, "entirely out of keeping" with the apostle Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians.

===end excerpt ===

(3) Mr. Hein claims that, in respect to the Local Church, my article ignored “its record of cultic behavior.”

FACT: I believe the article, as written does not ignore the issue:

===begin excerpts===
The Local Church insists it is evangelical, not a cult. Living Stream Ministry (LSM), the group's nonprofit publishing corporation, has joined the main trade group for evangelical publishers and hired a top literary agent for Christian writers. Living Stream points to its statement of faith as proof of its orthodox beliefs.

Chinese Christian patriarch Watchman Nee founded the Local Church movement in the 1920s in China, and it has spread to Europe and North America. For many years after Nee's 1972 death in a communist prison, his disciple Witness Lee led the group. Lee, who resettled in Anaheim, California, died at age 91 in 1997. The group uses its own English translation of the Bible, the Recovery Version, and claims 25,000 adherents in the United States and 250,000 worldwide.

Lee passionately opposed the sectarian character of Protestant denominations. He argued that such groups "denied the Lord's name by denominating" themselves, an action he branded as "spiritual fornication." LSM President Benson Phillips told CT that Lee believed denominations create confusion among nonbelievers. "We don't view these organizations as the church themselves. Our speaking in this way is not directed to the people [within denominations]."
...
Evangelical verdict uncertain

Few evangelicals publicly support the Local Church or Living Stream. But the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA), which counts Harvest House as a founding member, has accepted Living Stream, based in Anaheim, California, as a member.

ECPA President Doug Ross said the group carefully examined Living Stream's statement of faith and interviewed its executives before granting admission. Living Stream also belongs to CBA, the national association of Christian retailers. Living Stream and several Local Church congregations have joined the Evangelical Christian Credit Union in Brea, California.

Local Church leaders have hired evangelical attorney Sealy Yates of Orange, California, as a literary consultant. The Yates law firm and literary agency has also represented Dallas Seminary Chancellor Chuck Swindoll, pastor and motivational speaker John Maxwell, and former Vice President Dan Quayle.
While Knox's Beisner does not count the group as evangelical, James Bjornstad, vice president of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions, is less critical. ...
===end excerpt===

Anyone who reads the article in full will see a balanced presentation of the issues. Mr. Hein may not realize that a news article — which this was — is intended to be a news report and not a theological critique. However, I believe my report — which was NOT, by the way, instigated in any form by the Local Church or anyone connected with the group — is fair and accurate. Mr. Hein's claims as stated above simply are not true as to the claim that I fail to “acknowledge” these matters. As to Mr. Hein's assertion that I do not understand them, I would ask how he proposes to know what is in my mind? I believe the article shows a more than adequate understanding of the issues as far as a general news report is concerned.

Of course, the greater issues remain:

(1) Why did Harvest House file a pre-emptory lawsuit against the Local Church, and how does this square with the scriptural admonitions against legal action (in I Corinthians) which Mr. Hein likes to cite against the Local Church? Does one group of Christians* get a pass on this, but not another?

(2) Why did Harvest House refuse to meet with people who sought a dialogue and understanding of an issue about which people reasonably disagree?

(3) Do Christians* have a right to defend themselves if other Christians refuse the Bible standard (Matt. 18:15-17) by which disputes should be settled?

The answers to these questions would, I believe, make for interesting reading. Yet, despite repeated attempts, neither Harvest House nor John Ankerberg would talk to me for the CT article.

One more point, in case you're wondering: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Local Church. I have never been in their employ, nor have I been a contractor for them or any subsidiary. The views expressed on this page are solely my own and do not represent any church, denomination, publication or entity.

* Mr. Hein has written that he considers the Local Church a "cult of Christianity" (see, for example, this page on his Web site) and that is his privilege. However, given that the Local Church considers themselves within the realm of evangelical Christianity, as do, apparently, the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association, the Evangelical Credit Union and the (chiefly evangelical) Christian Booksellers Association, then it would appear that there are those who would understand the lawsuit as a dispute between two groups of Christians. Moreover, if Mr. Hein does not consider the Local Church to be "Christian," in the evangelical sense, then why is he imposing a "Christian" standard on them?

Questions? Comments? Send me an e-mail: mark@kellner.us