|
 I am
appalled that the ECPA would post the press release of Living
Stream Ministry and
the Local
Churches (see Rush to Press, June 20, 2007,)
since the assertions made in this press release are so patently
wrong in light of the actual case record.
Living
Stream Ministry and the Local Churches criticized the reasoning
of the Court of
Appeals
of the First District of Texas, and erroneously warned ECPA
readers that this decision might give religious publishers "free
reign to use criminal accusations to attack
ministries and churches." This was never at issue. The reasoning
of the appellate court was not, as the LSM/LC reasoning
requires, that accusations of criminal activity are
protected if they occur in the context of religious criticism.
Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches wrote, "The
Appeals Court ruled, in essence, that if one party
accuses
another party with allegations of criminal behavior-but does it
in a 'religious'
context-it cannot be found liable for the damages it caused."
On the
contrary, nothing in the ruling of the Court of Appeals even
hints at that. The
court's
reasoning was instead two-pronged: first, that so far as its
theological
definition is concerned, the term cult is not actionable,
and for that the court gives ample legal
precedent; and second, that
no
accusations of criminal activity
(which
would be
actionable if, but only if, reasonably understood to have been
made against the
plaintiffs) in Ankerberg and Weldon's book could be understood
by a reasonable person as directed either explicitly or
implicitly at the plaintiffs.
I agree.
The
appeals court did not decline to define accusations of criminal
behavior as
defamatory, but accepted that they could be
if
they
were directed against an
identifiable person or persons.
Instead,
it ruled that "the passages in the book that refer
to the
church are not, as a matter of law, defamatory." Why? Because
the religious
context
immunized accusations of murder, rape, and child sacrifice from
being held defamatory? No, the court said nothing of the sort.
Instead,
the court justified its ruling on the ground that
the
characteristics of cults-including
...
criminal acts
...
"cannot reasonably
be
interpreted to defame every group in the book." In other words,
the
publisher
and authors argue that the
second
element of a
defamation
claim-that
a
defamatory
statement
was made
concerning the plaintiff
[italics
original]-cannot be met. We agree.
[boldface
added].
The court
focused again and again on the facts obvious to a reasonable
reader, that the
Harvest
House book did not charge the Local Churches with criminal or
illegal activities.
... [A]
plaintiff has no cause of action for a defamatory statement
directed to
some or
less than all of the group when there is nothing to single out
the
plaintiff.
...
...
[I]n order for an alleged
defamatory statement that is directed to
an
unidentified group of
individuals to be actionable,
it must create the
inference that
all
members
[emphasis original]
of the
group have
participated in the activity that forms the basis of the libel
suit. If the
statement refers to some, but not all members of the group, and
does not
identify
to which members it refers, it is not a statement of and
concerning
the
plaintiff.
... [T]he
Introduction of the book specifically states that "[t]he list
[of the
characteristics of a cult] is not exhaustive. Not all groups
have all the
characteristics and not all groups have every characteristic in
equal measure. ..."
...
In
sum, considering the Introduction as a whole, we cannot conclude
that a
reasonable reader could believe that all groups named in the
book participate
in the
criminal activities that plaintiffs claim as the basis of their
libel action.
No
reasonable reader could conclude that the book accuses the
church, and,
in fact,
every other church named in the book, of rape, murder,
child
molestation, drug smuggling, etc. As such, the allegedly
libelous statements in the Introduction are not "of and
concerning the church" and are not
actionable.
... [T]he
publisher and authors argue again that the second element of a
defamation claim-that a defamatory statement was made
concerning the plaintiff
[emphasis
original]-cannot be met. Again, we agree....
Because
the allegedly libelous statements in the Doctrinal Appendix are
not
of and
concerning the church, they are not actionable.
... The
gist of the church's complaint is that, by calling it a "cult"
and
including
a chapter on it in the book, the publisher and authors have
accused
it of
every "immoral, illegal and despicable action" mentioned in the
book.
However,
as we stated earlier, under the group libel doctrine,
a plaintiff has
no cause of action for a defamatory statement directed to some
or less than
all of the group when there is nothing to single
out the plaintiff.
[emphasis added]
...
We have
already held that nothing in the book singles out the
church
as having committed the "immoral, illegal, and despicable"
actions
alleged
in its petition. Simply being included in a group with others
who may
have
committed such "immoral, illegal, and despicable" actions does
not give rise to a libel claim.
Because the court did not reason as the LSM and the Local
Churches say it did, the argument of LSM and the Local
Churches is a red herring. The Local Church's complaint
depends on the reader reasoning thus:
[The book says that] Some cults commit illegal acts.
[The book says that] The Local Church is a cult.
Therefore [the book says that] the Local Church commits
illegal acts.
But
this argument is
not
reasonable, i.e.,
no reasonable person
would draw that conclusion from the book, because
(in logicians' terms) the argument commits the
fallacy of
undistributed middle. (The middle term, "cult" or "cults,"
is undistributed, i.e.,
it denotes only some
cults, not all, in both premises.) The court recognized
this and ruled correctly on this point.
If
the Local Churches' claim to have been defamed by the
statements in Ankerberg and Weldon's book were valid, then
it would equally prove that every doctrine of every group
discussed in the book should be attributed equally to
every other group discussed in the book. Thus, one would
have to infer that Ankerberg and Weldon claimed that every
group denied the Deity of Christ, because they claimed
that some groups do, and that
every group also affirmed the Deity of Christ, because
they claimed that some groups discussed do. That is, one
would have to infer that they claimed that every group
taught
every doctrine mentioned and its opposite. That is
absurd-as is the reasoning in LSM and the Local Churches'
press release published at the "Rush to Press" section of
the
ECPA web site.
In
Christ,
E.
Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Historical Theology and Social
Ethics
Knox Theological Seminary,
5554
N. Federal Highway,
Fort Lauderdale, FL
33308
Phone
954-771-0376; Fax 954-351-3343;
www.knoxseminary.edu
Consensus and Agreement
The following undersigned persons have read this letter by
Dr. Beisner and indicate that they are agreement with the
reasoning and sentiments expressed above.
Affiliations (if any) are given for purposes of
identification only; affiliation in
parentheses does not
imply that the affiliated organizations are aware of or
agree with the contents of the foregoing statement.
Eric Pement
Vice President, Evangelical Ministries to New Religions
James K. Walker
President, Watchman Fellowship
Paul Carden
Executive Director, The Centers for Apologetics Research
R. Philip Roberts
President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Kevin Alan Lewis
Assistant Professor of Theology & Law, Biola University
R. Alan Streett
Professor of Evangelism and Pastoral Ministry, Criswell
College
|
