The SPIN: "The Lord’s recovery is not a part of Christianity"—Ron Kangas, LSM Sr. Editor and director

"The Lord’s recovery is not a part of Christianity"—Ron Kangas, Senior Editor and Director of Living Stream Ministry (LSM)

"There is an unbridgeable gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity" —Ron Kangas, (The Ministry, June, 2004, p. 10)

"We need to maintain the gap between us and Christianity; the wider the gap is the better…"—Ron Kangas

"There is a great gulf fixed…between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity."—Ron Kangas

"If there are any bridges…between a local church and Christianity, I hope that we would go back, burn the bridges and broaden the gap."—Ron Kangas

"There is an irreconcilable difference between the church life in the Lord’s recovery and today’s Christianity in any of its forms."—Ron Kangas

"It is impossible for there to be any reconciliation between the recovery and Christianity."—Ron Kangas

"There is a separation between us and all the denominations, between us and all forms of organized Christianity"—Ron Kangas

"We should not try through diplomacy or negotiation to be reconciled."—Ron Kangas

Based upon their claim to be separate from Christianity, LSM issues Scathing Critique of Christianity:

The blended brothers—Ron Kangas, and Benson Phillips, & Bill Lawson, LSM-associate—recently made the following statements from the podium at LSM-sponsored gatherings, which were subsequently printed in LSM’s publications:

• "Christianity today, the reality of Babylon."—Benson Phillips, LSM President
• "We should not bring anything of Christianity into the Lord’s recovery…we accept nothing of Christianity."—Benson Phillips (The Ministry, March 2005, p. 121)
• "Today’s Christianity is a camp. It is composed of people who name the name of the Lord but who are actually worshipping something [else]."—Ron Kangas
• "Christianity…comprises a group of religious people, belonging to the Lord in name and honoring the Lord with their mouth but having their heart set on something [else]."—Ron Kangas, Senior Editor and LSM Director
• We have the pure ministry with the pure Word versus Christianity, filled with traditions."—Ron Kangas
• "The entire situation—not a part of it, not a majority of it, but the entire situation—of today’s Christianity is in degradation."—Bill Lawson

LSM purports to be the "one publisher" in the Lord’s recovery—"Living Stream Ministry… publish(es) the ongoing ministry in the Lord’s recovery" [Publication Work in the Lord’s Recovery, June, 2005] LSM is viewed as a pillar in the recovery.

"There is a separation between us…and all forms of organized Christianity," Ron Kangas asserts. He also says, "By Christianity we mean the religious system that is organized…" Christian Publishers have organized themselves into associations. Logically shouldn’t "all forms of organized Christianity," include Christian Publishers’ associations? Other Christian publications are specifically condemned by the blended brothers, who say, "The books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology, not to mention error in many cases. We are not part of organized Christianity." (The Ministry, March 2005) Yet:

• LSM joined the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA) in 2002. ECPA is an organization of Evangelical publishers within Christianity. IRS Tax records show LSM contributed $10,000 to the ECPA in 2003.
• LSM is a member of several other Christian organizations: The Christian Booksellers Association (CBA, since 1981), The Spanish Evangelical Publishers’ Association (SEPA, since 1995), The Union de Liberias y Editiorals Cristianas, A. C. (UNILEC, since 2000) and the Evangelical Christian Credit Union (since 2000). [see: Organizations last paragraph]
• Recently LSM sought and obtained an endorsement from Fuller Theological Seminary of Pasadena, CA. stating that "the teachings and practices of the local churches… represent the genuine, historical, biblical Christian faith in every essential aspect."  (Jan. 2006) [See Appendix for Fuller’s Statement]
• Fuller’s statement was the issue of 2 years of extensive dialogue between Fuller theology professors and LSM representatives (Ron Kangas, Benson Phillips, Andrew Yu etc). Yet, Ron Kangas said, "we should not try through diplomacy or negotiation to be reconciled."
• In pursuing LSM’s litigation against Harvest House publishers over the Encyclopedia of Cults…, Defense & Confirmation Project, Inc. (DCP) sought and obtained endorsements from various organizations and scholars within Christianity: Hank Hanegraaff & the Christian Research Institute, Gretchen Passantino & Answers in Action, the president of the Christian Broadcasting Association, Directors of ECPA, J. Gordon Melton (Director, Institute for Study of American Religion) etc. [See: Litigation]

In its conferences and publications, LSM strenuously condemns Christianity as being degraded and "filled with traditions," and claims to be irreconcilably different. Yet, while publicly condemning Christianity in word and in print, LSM seeks confirmation from Christian institutions (like Fuller Theological Seminary) and prominent scholars within evangelical Christianity. LSM values Christianity endorsements which affirm that its teachings represent the "genuine, historical, biblical Christian faith"—that is, that they are in line with "traditional" Christian teachings! In its litigation, LSM-affiliate DCP similarly enlisted the support and endorsement of Hank Hanegraaff and the Christian Research Institute , among others—all parties that LSM previously scorned!

It seems hypocritical for LSM to denounce Christianity for being "filled with traditions" and "degraded" but then seek authentication from Christianity that their own teachings are in line with "historical…Christian faith." If "the entire Christianity is degraded"—what’s the value of their endorsements? Similarly, it seems double-tongued to seek the endorsement of Christian scholars and organizations for litigation purposes, yet condemn them in other forums. Furthermore, it seems which position LSM adopts depends on the forum and their ends. Externally when it is expedient for litigation purposes LSM seeks approval from established and reputable Christian organizations; However, internally among the local churches, they declare "We have the pure ministry with the pure Word versus Christianity, filled with traditions."

LSM’s blended brothers insist that there is an unbridgeable gap, separation and irreconcilable differences between the "recovery" and Christianity. Yet, in addition to seeking endorsements by Christianity, LSM has become a member of and financially supports associations within Christianity (e.g. ECPA, CBA etc.). LSM’s contradictory position has provoked at least 60 evangelical scholars to issue an open letter calling on LSM to renounce its statements denigrating evangelical denominations and Christian organizations: "We decry as inconsistent and unjustifiable the attempts by Living Stream and the "local churches" to gain membership in associations of evangelical churches and ministries while…denigrating…such churches and ministries." (www.open-letter.org)

LSM Should Burn its Bridges to Babylon

LSM’s blended brothers tell the local churches to "burn the bridges" linking them with Christianity. Meanwhile, instead of "broadening the gap", LSM is establishing links to Christianity by engaging in extensive dialogues and joining publishers’ associations! Yet simultaneously they condemn other Christian publishers, saying, "The books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology."

If they stand by their critique of organized Christianity, LSM’s blended brothers should heed its own pronouncement by burning their bridges to "Babylon" and severing the links connecting LSM with other Christian institutions. To be consistent with their own teachings, LSM and its affiliates should publicly withdraw from all associations involving Christianity (e.g. CBA, ECPA and the Evangelical Christian Credit Union) and they should also repudiate endorsements received from Christian organizations (e.g. Fuller Theological Seminary, Christian Research Institute etc.).

If, on the other hand, LSM wishes to retain its associations with Christian organizations (because such associations are expedient in its litigation), it ought to publicly withdraw its scathing critique of Christianity.

The "great gulf" is not between LSM and Christianity, but rather between LSM’s teaching and practice. If LSM has the "pure ministry" (as it claims) at a minimum LSM must let their "Yes" be Yes and their "No" be No. Unless LSM’s blended brothers end the obvious contradiction between their teaching and practice, through one of the options mentioned above, their position remains hypocritical.

APPENDIX: Fuller Theological Seminary Statement:

Fuller Theological Seminary (Fuller) and leaders from the local churches and its publishing service, Living Stream Ministry (LSM), have recently completed two years of extensive dialogue.  During this time Fuller conducted a thorough review and examination of the major teachings and practices of the local churches, with particular emphasis on the writings of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, as published by Living Stream Ministry.  This process was undertaken in an attempt to answer many of the questions and accusations that are often associated with this group of churches and to locate the teachings and practices of these two men and the local churches in light of historical, orthodox Christianity.  Participants in the dialog from Fuller included Dr. Richard Mouw, President and Professor of Christian Philosophy; Dr. Howard Loewen, Dean of the School of Theology and Professor of Theology and Ethics; and Dr. Veli-Matti Karkainnen, Professor of Systematic Theology.  Representing the local churches were Minoru Chen, Abraham Ho, and Dan Towle.  Representing LSM were Ron Kangas, Benson Phillips, Chris Wilde, and Andrew Yu.

It is the conclusion of Fuller Theological Seminary that the teachings and practices of the local churches and its members represent the genuine, historical, biblical Christian faith in every essential aspect.  One of the initial tasks facing Fuller was to determine if the portrayal of the ministry typically presented by its critics accurately reflects the teachings of the ministry.  On this point we have found a great disparity between the perceptions that have been generated in some circles concerning the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and the actual teachings found in their writings.  Particularly, the teachings of Witness Lee have been grossly misrepresented and therefore most frequently misunderstood in the general Christian community, especially among those who classify themselves as evangelicals.  We consistently discovered that when examined fairly in the light of scripture and church history, the actual teachings in question have significant biblical and historical credence.  Therefore, we believe that they deserve the attention and consideration of the entire Body of Christ.

It is important to note, in understanding the process that we have undergone, that considerable attention was devoted at the outset to the stand of these churches on the essential elements of the genuine Christian faith adhered to by all true Christian believers.  We believe that if agreement on the basic tenets of the faith can be clearly established, then subsequent dialog and discussion concerning non-essential teachings properly fall within the realm of the fellowship of believers.  This determination was made by reading their publications and through our fellowship in five face-to-face meetings between Fuller and representatives of these churches and this ministry.  In regard to their teaching and testimony concerning God, the Trinity, the person and work of Christ, the Bible, salvation, and the oneness and unify [unity?] of the Church, the Body of Christ, we found them to be unequivocally orthodox.  Furthermore, we found their profession of faith to be consistent with the major creeds, even though their profession is not creedal in format.  Moreover, we also can say with certainty that no evidence of cultic or cult-like attributes have been found by us among the leaders of the ministry or the members of the local churches who adhere to the teachings represented in the publications of Living Stream Ministry.  Consequently, we are easily and comfortably able to receive them as genuine believers and fellow members of the Body of Christ, and we unreservedly recommend that all Christian believers likewise extend to them the right hand of fellowship.

Our times together were characterized by sincere, open, transparent, and unrestricted dialog.  There were several topics that we at Fuller approached with particular interest, such as the Trinity, the mingling of divinity and humanity, deification, modalism, their interpretation and practice of the "local" church, the divine and human natures of Christ, and their attitude toward believers outside their congregations.  We were given unlimited freedom to explore each of these areas.  In every instance we found the public perception of some to be far removed from the actual published teachings as well as the beliefs and practices of the believers in the local churches.

This statement is intended to provide those interested with a general overview of the process that we have been involved with and our overall conclusions.  This brief statement will be followed in the coming months by a paper addressing the aforementioned and other important theological topics in greater detail.  Representatives of the local churches and Living Stream Ministry have agreed to write a statement outlining in summary from [form?] their teachings on the major topics of interest concerning them.  Comments by Fuller will be offered on their teachings, as we have come to understand them after significant research and dialog.

More Cases