Kaung and Lee Lines in America - A History

[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.

Going back to the subject of Kaung's assembly in New York - I don't see any discrepancy between what they were doing and what Nee taught. That is why Lee's insistence on what they called themselves became such a problem. They didn't call themselves the church in New York City, and so what? They were already continuing and practicing what Nee taught, so Lee should have had no problem with that.