04-24-2018, 05:12 PM
|
#2
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,075
|
Re: Kaung and Lee Lines in America - A History
Quote:
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."
|
Freedom,
Your first paragraph confirms how careful and sensitive the ground of the church was to Brother Lee. Read that again.
Second point is a semantic argument on your part. He wasn't sure in the case of Westmoreland. You are reading more into it because you are engaging in subjective validation.
Third point: When he came to NY Brother Lee was clear and reading the testimony you provided from Brother Kaung it is more than clear to any objective reader that Brother Kaung had no intention of continuing in the teaching of Brother Nee concerning the ground of the church. He chose to conduct his ministry differently. I am not sure why that is a problem for you to accept. It is his clear testimony that he was not going to do it.
Drake
|
|
|