Originally Posted by Indiana

Minoru revisits the early church life in LA, and announces, "I have a strong burden for the Southern CA churches".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YufoxgwnssI

Minoru became ignited by the LA elders' narrative, which begins on p. 4 of the Kaung and Lee Lines and he exhorts the SoCal churches to recover the spirit of prayer and the spirit of praise that had prevailed in the church in LA in the 60s and early 70s.

And the blueprint is actually there in that narrative for them to return to the blessing and one accord on the Body ground.

http://www.lordsrecovery.us/LeeKaungLinesinAmerica.pdf[/url]

Originally Posted by Indiana

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YufoxgwnssI

Minoru revisits the early church life in LA. "I have a strong burden for the Southern CA churches".

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Maybe you need to reread post 144 and check the definition of non sequitur.

Originally Posted by Drake

I will clarify something. I am not promoting Brother Lee or Brother Nee

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

I’m familiar with post 144... I wrote it!

Your response about LSM is a non sequitur.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

See post #144.

Drake,

If you were so obsessed with your “points”, maybe you’d see what you’ve gotten yourself into and begin to work your way to truth, rather than dig yourself even deeper.

Originally Posted by Drake

Er, ummmmm

What does that have to do with my point?

Originally Posted by Drake

Er, ummmmm

What does that have to do with my point?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Isn’t that the whole point of Living Streams Ministry - to promote the works of Lee and Nee? And isn’t LSM the only approved publication for the Lord’s Recovery on earth? Aren’t the publications of the LSM, and only the LSM, critical and mandatory for a proper church life?

Originally Posted by Drake

I will clarify something. I am not promoting Brother Lee or Brother Nee

Originally Posted by Drake

The goal is to build the Body of Christ through the functioning of every member. I have not found a ministry that places that at the center of their focus other than this one.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Actually, I had made changes in the post above that left out the word ignoble and also this sentence - "This is why Nee and Lee called themselves Shanghai Christian Assembly.” These changes did not take, however, last night. Timed out, I think.

Let me say this Drake, I will draw from Nee and Lee heavily when I share things, but not as I once did, as if they were as God and all their words gospel. They have made important mistakes that should be recognized.

This teaching on the ground of the church needs to be reviewed soberly in the Local Churches. They have this responsibility, as Nee and Lee could check on the Brethren leaders who came before them.

We who are on “the fast lane to outer darkness”, according to RK (for challenging LSM’s faulty rendering of church history), can also check on this controversial teaching. I had no problem with it whatsoever till a new environment, at SCA, gave me another look and impression of that teaching the way it was taught and used.

By the way, Brother Lee declared that this teaching of the ground, and of the local church, "should not be our cargo". This was his word at the end of the Song of Songs training 1995, that ended the Life-Study of the Bible.

He didn’t want people preaching the “gospel of the ground of the church”, but rather to minister Christ as the way, the truth, and the life to build up believers in or outside of the church life and to attract unbelievers also.

In other words avoid unnecessary trouble and become a testimony of the local church. This is our purpose for meeting on the Body ground. And these are Brother Kaung’s sentiments as he expressed in 2012 in NY. His concern has been to be a testimony of the local church and of the oneness in the Body of Christ. There is no mention of a man, a ministry or claim to be something special.

www.lordsrecovery.us/LeeKaungLinesinAmerica.pdf

Originally Posted by Ohio

Who is "THE WE" in this quote?

Only those who ascribe to LSM's books and teachings? Only those who were in the room with Nee? I think not.

Originally Posted by Indiana

…But to identify themselves as the church in that locality might be an unnecessary stumbling block to lay before brethren in the Body of Christ. This is why Nee and Lee called themselves Shanghai Christian Assembly, to avoid setting up a stumbling block.

If you are standing on a ground of oneness in your locality, you are on the Body ground as the church AND are one with every regenerated believer in your locality. No claimed distinction stands in the way to make your “group” different and above others in your city.

The spiritual attitude of a group of believers is huge, if they are to live in the reality of a proper ground of oneness before God and man.

Originally Posted by Drake

What line is crossed?

Being an American, am I ignoble because I call myself an American?

Originally Posted by Drake

That all sounds well and good except there is one glaring discrepancy in your presentation..... though every regenerated believer is a member of the Body of Christ yet the vast majority of believers in any place do not take that standing but rather take a different standing.....

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In "LOVE NOT THE WORLD" Nee writes:

For let us realize who we are! We are the Church, the light of the world shining amid the darkness. As such let us live our lives down here.

Originally Posted by Indiana

In certain contexts we at Seattle Christian Assembly can say that, and so could Shanghai Christian Assembly say that when Nee and Lee were there and Fenli and Yu. But to identify themselves as the church in that locality might be an unnecessary stumbling block to lay before brethren in the Body of Christ. This is why Nee and Lee called themselves Shanghai Christian Assembly, to avoid setting up a stumbling block. If you are standing on a ground of oneness in your locality, you are on the Body ground, as the church AND are one with every regenerated believer in your locality and on the earth. No claimed distinction stands in the way to make you different. The spiritual reality is enough, before God and man.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In "LOVE NOT THE WORLD" Nee writes:

For let us realize who we are! We are the Church, the light of the world shining amid the darkness. As such let us live our lives down here.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Your point might win out, there was certainly consensus on being strong on the standing of the ground of oneness; notwithstanding, it is calling yourselves THE church that makes the distinction and a line is crossed.

It would be good if you can correct me. We're after the truth on this forum.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Your point might win out, there was certainly consensus on being strong on the standing of the ground of oneness. It is calling yourselves THE church that makes the ignoble distinction an a line is crossed.

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana,

Interesting reading up to this comment:

"The consensus among his co-workers was that Nee would not have made the distinction of being “the church”.

I have recently had the pleasure to re-read Brother Nee's fellowship on the "the church" in all the titles you would recognize. Brother Nee was very strong and adamant about our standing as the church in each locality. Unless you have something from Brother Nee to show he flipped that view then I would surmise that the consensus was in error.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Indiana

www.lordsrecovery.us/LeeKaungLinesinAmerica.pdf

I saw a LSM video recently that encourages me to get this thread back up.

Originally Posted by Indiana

"...He presented a number of serious concerns to Brother Lee and asked him to bring all these things to the Lord. Brother Chu told me that Brother Lee listened quietly and passively to all his points (with one exception), making no comment, neither admitting nor denying. The exception was a point he made concerning Brother Lee’s son, Philip Lee. In conclusion, Brother Chu told Brother Lee, "All the sweet feeling we had in the past is lost. All the rest in our spirit is over."

*I will mention just a few more comments made by Brother Chu. He said that he feels very sorry for the present state of things -- he gave his whole life to this. He has received letters from elderly ones in Taipei that are full of blood and tears. There are very few elderly ones there who are not discouraged or withdrawn. The warfare now is fiercer than in Watchman Nee’s day when the issue was that of leaving the denominations. We are at a critical juncture. We cannot be silent regarding the change of nature in the Lord’s recovery. We should have no part in it. This is a day for further recovery. We need a new beginning to recover us back from the change of nature to the Lord’s original intention. We must discard all the changes of nature. The main direction is to come out of the system; it cannot change.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is the whole weakness in the "we follow this man because this man is following the Lord" logic. If you are not practiced at hearing the Lord's voice and following him then you will not be strong enough to hear it when the man you are following deviates, which he will.

Also, the fact that he was "disgusted" shows that this was his case. If you follow the Lord from the beginning the fact that someone else deviates is not going to surprise or disgust you.

WL's doctrine focuses on following leaders, yet the NT says "my sheep hear My voice". “First, we must be very clear that when a leader violates an essential truth either in teaching or in practice, we cannot follow him. If the path that leader is taking leads us into division from the Body of Christ or from the proper standing of a local church, we cannot go along with him. (Nee, vol. 50, p. 824)

Originally Posted by Indiana

Witness Lee and his ministry have become the ground of the church;
and this ground has become the cause of division in the Local Churches worldwide.

1988 Godred Otutye - During late eighties turmoil

“The next afternoon I joined Godfred and Al at Brother Lee’s home. Godfred spoke
strongly, asking Brother Lee first if he had spoken anything against us recently. He replied
that he had not. Then Godfred reasoned with him: How is it that you speak against
autonomy, considering that a problem, but you will not deal with the problems that we
brought to your attention. Godfred spoke earnestly and impressively.
He said,"the center of the church should be Christ, but He has been replaced by you and your ministry."
Brother Lee was touched by what Godfred said, and perhaps considering that what he had
just alleged afforded some light for clearing up the problem, he said, "I like to hear that." I
recall the scene vividly, and his words still echo in my ears. It seemed that this time
Brother Lee appreciated the frank fellowship and was trying to warm up to us. But we
could not seem to make any real progress. Brother Lee remarked that everything that had
happened in Europe which had caused so great a problem between the churches and the
Living Stream Ministry was just a misunderstanding. After the meeting Godfred told us
that he wanted to leave the eldership and was fully disgusted with the whole situation.”
- John Ingalls, Speaking the Truth in Love

Originally Posted by Indiana

“First, we must be very clear that when a leader violates an essential truth either in teaching or in practice, we cannot follow him. If the path that leader is taking leads us into division from the Body of Christ or from the proper standing of a local church, we cannot go along with him. (Nee, vol. 50, p. 824)

Originally Posted by Terry

Agreed JJ. Though I will say pre-1986 the local churches did a better job of receiving visitors. At least that was my experience in S.B., CA. Whether a Lord's Day meeting or Young People's meeting, it was normal to invite classmates to visit. I don't ever recall any speaking with the intent of puffing up the recovery by putting down non-LC assemblies. That I did not witness that type of speaking until the 1990's.
I will make one addition to your quote, "we may visit other churches, but we refuse to take the table with them."

Originally Posted by JJ

That sounds like a far cry from what I saw in California from 1978-2015. "Receiving the believers" in my localities was more like: We welcome you to come meet with us (we really do!). But, when you do, be prepared to endure insults about your church's beliefs and practices. And, if you choose to continue meeting with us after that, you better join in to worship the way we do and use our Living Stream Ministry materials as you do because you will get the silent treatment and/or the boot out the door if you don't. And, we wouldn't dream of going and participating in another groups' divisive meetings unless we get a chance to show them we have superior teachings and practices and therefore leave their group for ours.

Also, I've seen much better receiving of the believers practiced in community churches in the cities I've lived in.

Originally Posted by Drake

Sure JJ.

In sum... we received every believer who came to us, we did not force them to participate in the meetings nor use any Bible except the one they preferred. If they stood to share they spoke on whatever moved them without any hindering. We held Bible studies in our local communities with Christians of every persuasion and explicitly avoided proselytizing. We held gospel singing and ministering in public parks and events and other Christians joined in to help without us taking their names. By invitation we went to the worship services of other Christian groups to speak and we joined in to whatever type of worship they engaged along with their pop bands, African drums, lifting and waving holy hands, etc.. And we held love feasts in our meeting hall and invited Christians to enjoy a meal and meet and greet without any obligation on their part whatsoever. If unbelievers came into our midst a couple of brothers or sisters would try to lead them to the Lord.

Does that work for you?

Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Drake

we received every believer who came to us, we did not force them to participate in the meetings nor use any Bible except the one they preferred. If they stood to share they spoke on whatever moved them without any hindering. We held Bible studies in our local communities with Christians of every persuasion and explicitly avoided proselytizing. We held gospel singing and ministering in public parks and events and other Christians joined in to help without us taking their names. By invitation we went to the worship services of other Christian groups to speak and we joined in to whatever type of worship they engaged along with their pop bands, African drums, lifting and waving holy hands, etc.. And we held love feasts in our meeting hall and invited Christians to enjoy a meal and meet and greet without any obligation on their part whatsoever. If unbelievers came into our midst a couple of brothers or sisters would try to lead them to the Lord.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Now do you actually believe that Drake? If so, you must be in a very different LSM Church than the ones I experienced. Maybe outside the US the LSM ministry churches are how you describe, far away from headquarters.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why do you take my posts as criticism? I'm trying to help you.

Originally Posted by Drake

Apparently my response to JJ does not fit your canned narrative so you are trying to derail the train of thought and devolve the discussion into your favorite mire to have us all wallow around in it with you.... yet again.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

So LSM never was a headquarters to quarantine Midwest LC's?

You are right about straw. It will soon all be burnt.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ohio, these Lcers never accept their mistakes.

Originally Posted by Drake

Read the context and join in that way. You are changing the subject again dragging every conversation into your straw universe.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ohio, these Lcers never accept their mistakes.

Originally Posted by Drake

Read the context and join in that way. You are changing the subject again dragging every conversation into your straw universe.

Originally Posted by Ohio

More word games Drake?

Then you must bury your head in the sand during all those times when your headquarters was executing quarantines, divisions, and lawsuits against other LC's.

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

Of course I believe it! I just described my personal experience over forty years!

There was no “headquarters “ oversight. Perhaps the difference was that you were in an “LSM Church” ... whatever that is... I’ve never met one.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Point Drake!

Now do you actually believe that Drake? If so, you must be in a very different LSM Church than the ones I experienced. Maybe outside the US the LSM ministry churches are how you describe, far away from headquarters.

Originally Posted by JJ

You've heard it for 40 years. Good for you, Drake. I suppose you have seen it practiced for 40 years in TLR as well.

Tell us then exactly how it is practiced where you have been.

Originally Posted by Indiana

I think that this week we are going to see the truth of the underbelly of several former top government officials. That is, many who have been holding down the truth in unrighteousness will have their mouths shut by those who have done their homework through investigation and have the truth in their hands to present to the American public. The virtues of the exposed won't be considered. The works of darkness of the exposed will take center stage. So that all the world can see who they are. The show of innocence is over. The lies and the liars will be overcome by investigators and reporters of truth. Ones who care for and have labored to bring forth righteousness and justice in this country will have their day and maybe their way.

In view of this, those on this forum who resist the truth and support lies regarding men and events in our church history should consider the value of righteous investigation and reporting, and if you would rather be a part of that than be an unrighteous defender of the indefensible.

Originally Posted by Drake

Cite one example where I defended Philip Lee.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Bill Mallon, a former prominent elder tried, but in futility, to voice his concerns for what he saw happening at LSM and in the recovery.

He said in 2006, “You will never know how completely astonished, shocked, and unnerved we were when WL put more and more things under Philip Lee’s responsibility. It was incredible and unbelievable from the get-go!”

Originally Posted by Ohio

Philip Lee ran LSM for many years, and all elders and workers were commanded to submit to him. Don't you remember?

Your defense of LSM is a defense of Philip's worst behaviors. Since this forum is G-rated, I'll not spell out these salacious but verified behaviors at this time.

Originally Posted by Drake

Nope.

Provide one statement here or there where I ever defended Philip Lee.

One. You are waffling..... you were specific in your allegation now be specific in your proof. Let’s see it ... now.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Responses to Drake's challenges on the other thread.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I feel compassion for you and others Drake, that is the reality of things man.

Originally Posted by Drake

One.

Provide one quote where I defended Philip Lee.

Waiting.......

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok LofT.

You don’t hate. You pity.

Either can be toxic when expressed.

That was the sisters observation.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Philip Lee ran LSM for many years, and all elders and workers were commanded to submit to him. Don't you remember?

Your defense of LSM is a defense of Philip's worst behaviors. Since this forum is G-rated, I'll not spell out these salacious but verified behaviors at this time.

Originally Posted by Drake

One. Don’t divert.

Show one.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yo Drake did you sign that "loyalty pledge?"

Originally Posted by Drake

Provide just one statement I have ever made defending Philip Lee.

One.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm just so overwhelmed by the faux-rage of the defender of Philip Lee.

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

It’s not just disagreeing...even fervently.

It is the obsession she is describing. Toxic.

Frankly, I’ve ever seen anything like it in all my born days!

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

Yet this same attitude wasn't in Luther vis-à-vis the RCC?

And did you ever read the Fermentation of the Present Rebellion by Witness Lee? It had language that would make a sailor blush. I read it when I was "hard core" for the LC cause, and I was dismayed. Toxic? Totally.

So why the selective assessments? Anyone with some grip on objective reality will smell something fishy coming out of this group. If God is not a respecter of persons, why are we?

Originally Posted by Drake

It’s not just disagreeing...even fervently.

It is the obsession she is describing. Toxic.

Frankly, I’ve ever seen anything like it in all my born days!

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I have no hatred or bitterness towards Lee or anyone else from the LC for that matter. Very similarly I have no hatred towards Joseph Smith and those of Mormon faith. To make a claim to the contrary could be considered silliness, intentional deceit, lunacy, or just a lack of awareness, wisdom, or God’s grace. The status of the LSM and its churches is something to be pitied.

Originally Posted by Drake

Silly? Why, is that the most plausible explanation? Silliness?

Rather, I think it’s psychological. Expectations. Disappointment. Resentment. Key ingredients that leads people to blame others like you just did and do every chance you get. No one I know idolizes Lee. Yet, you think hundreds of thousands idolize Brother Lee. Now, that is a candidate for silliness if silliness is the issue.....but the hatred you continually express for all things Lee indicates something much more complex than silliness.

No, I think that sister pegged it exactly right. Toxic, Bitter, Angry. That characterization is accurate.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

"Bitter and angry" - so Martin Luther was bitter and angry against the RCC? I have heard numerous Catholics make that point. Just sour grapes, right? Or, that Watchman Nee's unfulfilled ambition caused him to stumble, and to leave the Anglican fold, and strike out on his own? Or Witness Lee with the baptists?

Jesus warned us about this spirit - quick to condemn others for the very things it ignored and excused in itself.

"It's okay when I do it, but how dare you!" Such sentiments are understandable coming from a six-year-old but less so from a self-obsessed religious fanatic.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Her heartfelt email, echoing the sentiments of many......


Brother Steve,

You mean Stephen Kaung couldn’t take the way of the ground of the churches which is fully revealed in the Bible? Perhaps Kaung’s ambition to have some kind of position caused him to stumble. The Seattle Christian Assembly is a “division”. There is only one church in one city and all the believers in that city should meet as the church in that city. You know this! God’s eternal purpose will be carried out in only one way ... God’s way. To be “similar in heart” and yet be divisive is not the reality of the church. Regardless how pitiful the church looks from man’s eyes, she is glorious in God’s eyes. He finds no fault in her.

The way back into fellowship with the church is to “enter the narrow gate and walk the constricted way” which is your mingled spirit. Allow the cross to deal with all your division. Be humble. Retract your “In the Wake of the New Way” or whatever the name of the booklet you inspired that has caused you so much trouble.

I left the “local church discussions forum” because it had become too toxic for me to stay. They were not interested in real, honest discussions. They were bitter and angry against brother Lee. Perhaps they held brother Lee so high on their “apostolic” pedestal that when he made some mistakes they couldn’t take it anymore.....

.......So the way to return is simple ... enter and walk.

Your sister in Christ, (part of the email)

............

Originally Posted by Drake

Silly? Why, is that the most plausible explanation? Silliness?

Rather, I think it’s psychological. Expectations. Disappointment. Resentment. Key ingredients that leads people to blame others like you just did and do every chance you get. No one I know idolizes Lee. Yet, you think hundreds of thousands idolize Brother Lee. Now, that is a candidate for silliness if silliness is the issue.....but the hatred you continually express for all things Lee indicates something much more complex than silliness.

No, I think that sister pegged it exactly right. Toxic, Bitter, Angry. That characterization is accurate.

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, you think I am "disappointed" due to misplaced expectations in Witness Lee? Do you hear how silly that sounds? No, I am not disappointed in my expectations of Witness Lee. I am outraged for the so many hundreds and thousands of people I know still caught up in the bondage of that religious system that idolizes Witness Lee.

Originally Posted by Drake

Your statement suggests that your expectations were misplaced. You never recovered from the disappointment. It seems to me that rather than accept your role in the disappointment you divert blame to others.

She was right.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Your statement suggests that your expectations were misplaced. You never recovered from the disappointment. It seems to me that rather than accept your role in the disappointment you divert blame to others.

She was right.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

That smarted did it?

Well, it was said in jest, but since you took it so personal I will retract it.

But the comparison only went to the extent that before she even opens her mouth you know what she is going to say and how she is going to say it. After that the comparison stops. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

That aside, this sister has accurately described the character of this forum don't you agree? I have independently assessed that the vitriol and despising of Brother Lee must be because forum members had put him on a pedestal and he disappointed them. I said the same thing not too long ago in another post. At least, they seem to explain their discontent in terms that suggest that.

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Witness Lee put himself on a pedestal, as do his followers today. The Local Church movement is the religion of those who follow Witness Lee and his ministry ("the ministry").

Originally Posted by Drake

That smarted did it?
That aside, this sister has accurately described the character of this forum don't you agree?I have independently assessed that the vitriol and despising of Brother Lee must be because forum members had put him on a pedestal and he disappointed them. I said the same thing not too long ago in another post. At least, they seem to explain their discontent in terms that suggest that.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have no grounds to condemn the forum after you compare Nigel Tomes to Maxine Waters.

Originally Posted by Drake

Very well said, Indiana.

Every month in this forum...yet more toxic. Honest discussions. Rare. Bitter and angry at anything connected to Brother Lee. Through the roof.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Her heartfelt email, echoing the sentiments of many......


Brother Steve,

You mean Stephen Kaung couldn’t take the way of the ground of the churches which is fully revealed in the Bible? Perhaps Kaung’s ambition to have some kind of position caused him to stumble. The Seattle Christian Assembly is a “division”. There is only one church in one city and all the believers in that city should meet as the church in that city. You know this! God’s eternal purpose will be carried out in only one way ... God’s way. To be “similar in heart” and yet be divisive is not the reality of the church. Regardless how pitiful the church looks from man’s eyes, she is glorious in God’s eyes. He finds no fault in her.

Originally Posted by Indiana

These posts have been thought-provoking to me and I believe to many looking on. (I sent emails out also.) I got an email response at the start from a long-time sister in the church in Houston, not happy with me, or with Stephen Kaung, or with anyone on this forum who does not agree with her perception of the ground of oneness. (She did sign off with, "Your sister in Christ, .....), but the subject is evocative to her and to many holding this aggressive concept dearly.)

Then a brother wrote to me with several decades of experience also, including with the church in Houston, and a Kaung-associated assembly in Houston, and now associated with neither but meets in a home meeting church life in Houston. His perspective was amazingly different than the sister's. (He had no problem with Kaung. "Stephen Kaung and Witness Lee are total opposites".)

Originally Posted by Indiana

....It must have bothered LC brothers in some places to be called the church in that city, for the church in Seattle, at least, have had a sign out front of their meeting hall for many years that says:

A Meeting Place of the Church in Seattle

(It's a very nice sign with an inviting appeal, and ring of truth.)

Originally Posted by Terry

What exactly is that ground of the church Nee taught versus what Lee taught versus what Living Stream is propagating?

Originally Posted by Drake

I always love a snippy attitude coupled with an underhanded Wiffle ball pitch.

Originally Posted by Freedom

[/COLOR][/COLOR]
But here's the thing - Lee knew what Kaung was doing, he knew Kaung didn't interpret what Nee taught in the same way, but he accepted the invitations to go there and minister anyways. If he had such a problem with it, he shouldn't have gone there in the first place. If he felt that Kaung wasn't continuing with what Nee taught, then what was his purpose in associating with Kaung?

Originally Posted by Drake

Originally Posted by Freedom

But here's the thing - Lee knew what Kaung was doing, he knew Kaung didn't interpret what Nee taught in the same way, but he accepted the invitations to go there and minister anyways. If he had such a problem with it, he shouldn't have gone there in the first place. If he felt that Kaung wasn't continuing with what Nee taught, then what was his purpose in associating with Kaung?

Originally Posted by Drake

Your first paragraph confirms how careful and sensitive the ground of the church was to Brother Lee. Read that again.

Originally Posted by Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

Your scriptural argument against the Jerusalem principle is rational. I just don't think I agree with it completely. I will have to think about it.

However, even in Brother Nee's earliest teachings on the work and the churches there is an interaction and dependency between the two. So I disagree with your characterization that the latter teaching introduced an element that was not present before. Yet, I will agree that the model in the earlier teaching was mostly based on Paul's ministry (Antioch principle) and the Jerusalem principle came later and was based on the interaction of the work conducted in the same place as the a big church (Jerusalem). That is, Peter lived in Jerusalem and ventured out but returned. Nevertheless, though Paul had a more pass through model in his earliest journeys he nevertheless appointed elders, assigned apostles to work in churches and instructed those apostles and co-workers what to teach and directed any actions he felt needed to be taken based on what was happening in that local church.

Drake

Originally Posted by Freedom

So getting back to Kaung... I have established that early on, that Lee wasn't insistent upon the ground. But when he came to New York, he pushed the matter on Kaung. This would suggest either hypocrisy or that there were hidden motives at play. That is what the facts support. The facts don't support that Kaung "flat out rejected the ground of the church teaching."

Originally Posted by Freedom

“Brother Lee was not at peace and had some reservation about Westmoreland. He asked the question, “Is now the right time?” Continuing, he said, “We run a risk if we continue in this line [remaining apart from Westmoreland]. Such would be a shame to the Lord, to His name, and to His teaching. I am confident that the Lord will do a work in Los Angeles. We do not want to frustrate the work of God at this time. I am concerned for our future, so itis better to stop now and wait and see. You cannot do anything that is doubtful. We must always act from a pure conscience.”
...Notice how Lee never directly stated that Westmoreland was on the wrong ground. He only said he had reservations about Westmoreland, and that it wasn't clear whether they were on the right ground. ....

So getting back to Kaung... I have established that early on, that Lee wasn't insistent upon the ground. But when he came to New York, he pushed the matter on Kaung. This would suggest either hypocrisy or that there were hidden motives at play. That is what the facts support. The facts don't support that Kaung "flat out rejected the ground of the church teaching."

Originally Posted by Drake

Freedom,

Thanks for sharing Brother Kaung’s point of view.

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the above.

I can picture it unfolding exactly that way and it shows Brother Kaung’s departure from Brother Nees teaching. You may fault Brother Lee for his faithfulness to Brother Nee but the fact that Brother Lee gave Kaung first right of refusal concerning the ground of the church in NY is also consistent with Brother Nee’s teaching to make sure the ground is not already established. Kaung just flat out rejected the ground of the church teaching by Brother Nee.

Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What's a "local church", Drake? (watch this folks!)
-

Originally Posted by Ohio

If we study the church in Jerusalem in the New Testament after the conversion of Saul/Paul, we see nothing but problems concerning the church there. Jerusalem, though some of the apostles were still there, became the source of many problems. Few examples:

• Acts 15.1 Certain ones went out of Jerusalem teaching that salvation required circumcision
• Acts 21.20 The believing Jews in Jerusalem were still obsessed with the law of Moses
• Acts 21.24 Church members still performed rituals at the Temple
• Acts 21.22 Like the unsaved Jews, the church in Jerusalem still despised taking the gospel to the Gentiles
• Gal 2.4 False brothers from Jerusalem would sneak into Gentile churches causing chaos and persecution
• Gal 2.12 Those sent out from Jerusalem demanded Kosher adherence and separation between Jews and Gentiles

Paul in Gal 2.4-5 describes the motive of all those being sent out from the headquarters in Jerusalem -- not to spread the gospel, not to preach the good news of Jesus Christ -- but to bring the Gentiles into slavery, under subjection to their demands.


Both Nee and Lee in their early ministries demanded that LC's be completely free from all outside influences and subjections. Whether they be foreign, legalistic, mission boards, or denominational, no LC should ever be brought under the subjection to outside influences. Read their books on this subject.


At the end of both of their ministries, they conveniently became flip-floppers for self-serving, personal gains. They elevated their own ministry to "the" ministry, and the "ministry of the age." They surrounded themselves with minions and sycophants who would protect them from moral impropriety and grossly elevate their status in the movement.

Originally Posted by Drake

No.

To Jerusalem principal was about the work not the ground of the church.

You keep confusing those two.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry, bro.

I've seen it in action, with the abuse, the bullying, firing elders, and even lawsuits.

It is you who are confused.

Originally Posted by Drake

...but the fact that Brother Lee gave Kaung first right of refusal concerning the ground of the church in NY is also consistent with Brother Nee’s teaching to make sure the ground is not already established.

Originally Posted by Drake

No.

To Jerusalem principal was about the work not the ground of the church.

You keep confusing those two.

Drake

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LCM has gone to great lengths to promote Lee as Nee's sole successor. Such a view came directly from Lee. He felt that he was Nee's top coworker. He had no problem coming up with ridiculous ways to criticize others. Take for example what he said about Kaung:
"After Brother Nee passed away, the first one who spoke of receiving ministries was Brother Stephen Kaung; he was the leader in receiving ministries. Well, so Stephen Kaung has received ministries until today. More than thirty years have passed and have become history. What is the result? Now, may I ask, what is Stephen Kaung's ministry? I do not believe that even he is able to tell us what his ministry is."

Lee criticized Kaung for "receiving ministries." How ridiculous. And it just goes to show that Lee had every intention as positioning himself in the way that he did.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was not Kaung, but Nee who departed from Nee's own teachings of the local ground after Nee was released from his disciplinary excommunication by the elders of the church in Shanghai between 1942-48. Upon his "Resumption" Nee immediately set aside all "local" principles and established the "Jerusalem Principle" of centralized authority over all the member churches. Since his new endeavors needed an inrush of manpower and money, he promoted the demand for all "loyal" members to "hand over" all of their resources to "the" ministry, loosely basing this on Acts 4.34-35.

Originally Posted by Drake

Agree. Among Brother Nee’s coworkers Brother Lee carried that torch alone as best as I can ascertain.

Originally Posted by Drake

I can picture it unfolding exactly that way and it shows Brother Kaung’s departure from Brother Nees teaching. You may fault Brother Lee for his faithfulness to Brother Nee but the fact that Brother Lee gave Kaung first right of refusal concerning the ground of the church in NY is also consistent with Brother Nee’s teaching to make sure the ground is not already established. Kaung just flat out rejected the ground of the church teaching by Brother Nee.

Originally Posted by Terry

Same can be said of Nee's other co-workers who left China. They're never mentioned in LC. It may very well be Lee was alone in pushing the ground of locality in the manner he did.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The lack of a viable explanation to defend Lee's behavior says a lot. Kaung gave a clear explanation about what happened with him and Lee:
"Brother Lee came to New York and told me, ‘You need to call yourself the church in New York.’ I said we cannot do that. There are only about 200 of us and there are so many of God’s people in NY, how can we claim to be the church in New York? That would excommunicate all the believers in New York. We have to testify for the local church, but we cannot claim ourselves as the local church. That’s the difference we had. Brother Lee said, ‘If you don’t claim yourself as the church in New York... alright... then there is no church in New York.’ Then he began to take over.”

In the LC, they rarely even mention Kaung, much less talk about why him and Lee went their own ways. If an 'official' explanation about what happened existed, I'm sure we would know about it already. So I only have Kaung's side of the story to go off of. Lee insisted on something that Kaung didn't feel comfortable insisting on, and it resulted in him and Lee not being able to work together anymore. That's really sad, but even worse, it is part of a pattern in Lee's legacy.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LCM has gone to great lengths to promote Lee as Nee's sole successor. Such a view came directly from Lee. He felt that he was Nee's top coworker. He had no problem coming up with ridiculous ways to criticize others. Take for example what he said about Kaung:
"After Brother Nee passed away, the first one who spoke of receiving ministries was Brother Stephen Kaung; he was the leader in receiving ministries. Well, so Stephen Kaung has received ministries until today. More than thirty years have passed and have become history. What is the result? Now, may I ask, what is Stephen Kaung's ministry? I do not believe that even he is able to tell us what his ministry is."

Lee criticized Kaung for "receiving ministries." How ridiculous. And it just goes to show that Lee had every intention as positioning himself in the way that he did.

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, they rarely even mention Kaung, much less talk about why him and Lee went their own ways. If an 'official' explanation about what happened existed, I'm sure we would know about it already. So I only have Kaung's side of the story to go off of. Lee insisted on something that Kaung didn't feel comfortable insisting on, and it resulted in him and Lee not being able to work together anymore. That's really sad, but even worse, it is part of a pattern in Lee's legacy.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This story of events in 1948 was duplicated many times later during the "New Way" of the 80's: Two LC's in one city. Both loving the Lord Jesus as His testimony, yet one LC absolute for "the" ministry, and one not. Hence, another division in the body of Christ.

Originally Posted by Drake

And where do you get the idea of precedence given to Brother Lee? You apparently do not, Ohio does not, most people in this forum do not. Aren’t people free to make up their own minds?

Originally Posted by Drake

However, when you formulate speculation into the basis of an argument then I will speak up because at that point you are arguing from silence, a fallacy in argument. There are fallacious arguments in your post above. For instance, just because you haven’t heard an explanation does not mean that one has not been provided.... or there could be any number of reasons why Kaung choose not to embrace the ground of locality as clearly taught by Nee.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is proof that Lee was consistent in upholding the teachings of Nee and should silence Freedom's speculation. It is also proof against Ohio's claims that Nee's writings on this matter have been altered.

Originally Posted by Indiana

For many years there had been two Local Churches in Fuzhou: one at Jinmen Road and the other at Qiuchang Hou. The leaders at Jinmen Road were willing to hand-over their church to Nee and Lee. However, the leaders at Qiuchang Hou led by Zhang Qizhen had not been notified of the initial meetings at Nee’s residence. After being told, Zhang preferred to hold on Nee’s original principle of “One place, one church” and firmly refused to hand-over. The two Local Churches in Fuzhou openly split.

Originally Posted by Terry

I tend to hold the view Lee influenced Nee's change in 1948.

Originally Posted by Drake

Freedom, What we have is a perfectly consistent teaching on the ground of the church from Brother Nee's earlier writing to his latter writings. What Brother Nee would have thought later after prison is irrelevant and your surmising what Brother Nee would have thought is unfounded. Furthermore, Brother Nee's teaching on the ground of the church is consistent in content to what Brother Lee taught. You want a Brother Nee of your own concepts not the Brother Nee whose beliefs on the ground of the church strengthened as time went by....

Originally Posted by Freedom

Speculate is all that we can do because Nee isn't alive to clarify his real views. My speculation is based on the fact that among Nee's close coworkers, Lee was the only one who emphasized a specific view of locality. That kind of discrepancy is fair game for speculation.

Interestingly, I haven't heard anyone who is defending Lee offer up any kind of explanation as to why some of Nee's other coworkers didn't agree with what Lee wanted. In the past, I heard generic explanations like they didn't "see the ground." But that doesn't get to the root of the issue. They were all there, they all heard what Nee taught, but they walked away with different ideas. Why should Lee's views be given precedence over the views of anyone else?

Lastly, I am not following Nee (or Lee), so what Nee was taught concerning the ground makes no difference to me. It doesn't matter to me whether Nee and Lee did or didn't teach the exact same thing. So I have no motivation to construct a false narrative of Nee. All I am doing here is commenting on the similarities and differences between the different groups that began with Nee.

Originally Posted by Drake

Freedom,

You have an idea and are speculating and making stuff up to fit your narrative.

What we have is a perfectly consistent teaching on the ground of the church from Brother Nees earlier writing to his latter writings. What Brother Nee would have thought later after prison is irrelevant and your surmising what Brother Nee would have thought is unfounded. Furthermore, Brother Nees teaching on the ground of the church is consistent in content to what Brother Lee taught.

You want a Brother Nee of your own concepts not the Brother Nee whose beliefs on the ground of the church strengthened as time went by.

Concerning consistency.... I would hope that after decades of experience that revelation and insight would progress. My views, and I am sure yours, have evolved and matured at least in some measure over the course of your Christian life.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

We also have no idea how skewed these LSM books by Nee are. Lee and LSM constantly claimed that every other Nee book in Christianity was fraught with errors, and only they had the true notes and accurate translations from his messages.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So Ohio and others fabricate the editing of Lee’s messages from the original spoken word to print, then subsequent editing after original publication by the LSM?

Brother Ohio- is Drake correct in his accusation? And if so, why are you fabricating this false narrative?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So Ohio and others fabricate the editing of Lee’s messages from the original spoken word to print, then subsequent editing after original publication by the LSM?
Brother Ohio- is Drake correct in his accusation? And if so, why are you fabricating this false narrative?

Originally Posted by Drake

And by the way, there is no difference between online and the printed Life study... that is just a complete fabrication to make it appear as if there is something to hide. There is nothing to hide in this message. You may take it or leave it but it is there for your reading pleasure.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Everyone should read that Genesis Life Study message on Lot, probably #54 or #55, but not online at LSM's website. You need to go back to the original message, or better yet the audio tape.

Lee likens every free group or loose affiliation of born again believers gathering together in the Lord's name with their practices as the incestuous children of Lot conceived by a drunk in a cave.

Lee's wholesale judgments on the entire body of Christ are just pathetic!

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is the consistency issue that I mentioned, and it would suggest that "following Nee" was a bit of a wild goose chase to begin with. More on that later...

What encompasses Further Talks on the Church Life was spoken by Nee not long before his imprisonment. That means he didn't get to see the result of what he emphasized at that time. As such I don't feel that it would be accurate to say that represented his 'final' view on the matter any more than to say his earlier ministry reflected his real view.

What we do know, however, is that Lee was the only one of his coworkers who took that particular emphasis to heart. The rest of Nee's coworkers knew that either 1) Lee's understanding was not what Nee meant or 2) Nee meant what he said, but they could foresee the issues it would cause.

In either case, when Nee spoke of one church per city, the context was completely different in rural China, where the LCM existed in sharp contrast to the denominations and mission churches. When the LCM was imported to the U.S., it was just one of among many groups that didn't have any particular affiliation. Lee took an untested notion that he felt was represented of Nee and attempted to put it into practice. His fellow coworkers warned him about it, but he didn't listen.

Originally Posted by Ohio

15 years ago we re-read Nee's TNCCL and compared it to the practice at LSM under Lee, his son, and those Blendeds, and we found contractions on every page.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Drake,

This is mainly a matter of semantics (though I personally don't feel that Nee always held consistent views). The quotes I posted previously provide some context as to what Nee meant when he spoke about "standing on the ground." That is, Nee was primarily concerned with federation, outside control, outside missions, labels, etc. To him, "standing on the ground" meant standing against such things.

It might appear that Lee spoke about the same thing. But there are hints that to him "standing on the ground" meant something entirely different. To me, the biggest thing that would evidence this is that Lee criticized the non-denominational and free groups just as much as he criticized the denominations. Though Nee did teach a practice of having one church per city, he also clarified that by saying that if a "local" gathering already existed, it should be joined rather than starting a new one. When did Lee ever teach or practice that? Lee taught people to move to different cities and "take the ground" there, regardless of what was there already. In fact, I doubt there was every any significant effort made to see what local gatherings should be joined.

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is the consistency issue that I mentioned, and it would suggest that "following Nee" was a bit of a wild goose chase to begin with. More on that later...

What encompasses Further Talks on the Church Life was spoken by Nee not long before his imprisonment. That means he didn't get to see the result of what he emphasized at that time. As such I don't feel that it would be accurate to say that represented his 'final' view on the matter any more than to say his earlier ministry reflected his real view.

What we do know, however, is that Lee was the only one of his coworkers who took that particular emphasis to heart. The rest of Nee's coworkers knew that either 1) Lee's understanding was not what Nee meant or 2) Nee meant what he said, but they could foresee the issues it would cause.

Originally Posted by Freedom

It might appear that Lee spoke about the same thing. But there are hints that to him "standing on the ground" meant something entirely different. To me, the biggest thing that would evidence this is that Lee criticized the non-denominational and free groups just as much as he criticized the denominations. Though Nee did teach a practice of having one church per city, he also clarified that by saying that if a "local" gathering already existed, it should be joined rather than starting a new one. When did Lee ever teach or practice that? Lee taught people to move to different cities and "take the ground" there, regardless of what was there already. In fact, I doubt there was every any significant effort made to see what local gatherings should be joined.

Originally Posted by Drake

He was clear on the ground of locality. He was firm and his later ministry became even stronger on this point.

Originally Posted by Drake

Originally Posted by Freedom

Drake,
This is mainly a matter of semantics (though I personally don't feel that Nee always held consistent views). The quotes I posted previously provide some context as to what Nee meant when he spoke about "standing on the ground." That is, Nee was primarily concerned with federation, outside control, outside missions, labels, etc. To him, "standing on the ground" meant standing against such things.
It might appear that Lee spoke about the same thing. But there are hints that to him "standing on the ground" meant something entirely different. To me, the biggest thing that would evidence this is that Lee criticized the non-denominational and free groups just as much as he criticized the denominations. Though Nee did teach a practice of having one church per city, he also clarified that by saying that if a "local" gathering already existed, it should be joined rather than starting a new one. ....

Originally Posted by Drake

I’ve read and studied all of Nees books on the church cover to cover... he and Nees teaching on the ground of the church are identical.

Drake

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lee's teaching:
Nee's teaching:
Nee's teaching was that all believers are members of a local church by default, and his concern was just that outside factors would inhibit a practice of localism.

What Lee taught is that a local church comes about by taking a certain standing, as to suggest that local gatherings might not be part of a "local church" even if they are non-denominational.

Originally Posted by Drake

Freedom,

Please cite the quotes from Brother Lee that contradicts that quote from Brother Nee.

Thx
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

I’ve read and studied all of Nees books on the church cover to cover... he and Nees teaching on the ground of the church are identical.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

15 years ago we re-read Nee's TNCCL and compared it to the practice at LSM under Lee, his son, and those Blendeds, and we found contractions on every page.

W. Nee would never allow a LC to receive only one ministry.

Originally Posted by Ohio

W. Nee would never allow a LC to receive only one ministry.

Originally Posted by Drake

UntoHim,

Yours is a different point.. yet concerning the ground of the church there is no daylight between Bros Nee and Lee. They taught exactly the same thing.

Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good point Drake! It is crystal clear who represented Nee more closely.

Of Kaung and Lee, which one has caused the most division, confusion and dissension in the body of Christ? Which one has has gotten the attention of many Christian apologists and cult awareness ministries? It's not even a close call, now is it?

This very forum is filled with dozens (hundreds?) of quotes of Nee which show the man had no intention of the Little Flock/Local Churches developing into the religious, man-made institution known as The Local Church of Witness Lee/Living Stream Ministry.

If Watchman Nee came back today he would have absolutely nothing to do with the sect/movement/denomination based over there on La Palma in Anaheim. I think he would be repulsed to the uttermost to see what Witness Lee and his followers have done to his beloved, home grown native Christian movement.

What would he think of Kaung et al, and their little fellowship? I don't know.
-