Kaung and Lee Lines in America - A History

[Freedom]

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

I think you're making assumptions about the intentions of both Lee and Kaung. In Indiana's writing, he provided some insightful background on Lee's mindset when he came to the US. Here's what John Ingalls said:
Brother Lee came there to report to us of the time he had just had with C.J.B. Harrison of Westmoreland Chapel. For six hours, he and Brother Harrison met together. Witness Lee said that things were not clear at Honor Oak, [with Brother Sparks], but that Westmoreland was even more unclear. If Westmoreland were a denomination, we should leave it. He defined a denomination as a group who had a special name or a special fellowship (i.e., some are accepted, some rejected) or a special doctrine. He also said that it was not clear whether or not they were on the right ground.

“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. But according to what people have been telling me on this thread, Lee should have been crystal clear on the matter. This raises a very good question - if Lee was so adamant about the ground of locality, why didn't he just come out and say that Westmoreland wasn't standing on the ground? That's what I would have expected him to say, but he didn't. I would have also expected Lee to have been the one who spearheaded the initiative for the church in Los Angeles to take the ground. It wasn't. It was John Ingalls, Samuel Chang, and others who later called to tell him what they did.

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."

[Drake]

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

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

But that was just my point. He gave an initial appearance of handling the matter in a sensitive way. I also noted that it was not him who made the decision to "take the ground" in Los Angeles.

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

As far as I can tell, Westmoreland had some association with T.A. Sparks and perhaps a connection to Nee as well since Samuel Chang was there. Lee obviously was invited to minister there because of his affiliation with Nee. He had no apparent problem ministering there, and I don't see that he said anything negative other that having reservations or feeling that they weren't clear. So far so good... But then he had fellowship with the group of brothers there and suddenly they became convinced that they should "take the ground."

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

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?

[Ohio]

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?

To take over the church in NYC, and bring it into the fold.

[JJ]

I remember Witness Lee warning us in meetings on the West Coast of the US in the late 1970's to stay away from Kuang because he also published Watchman Nee books with different translations than LSM... and because he didn't preach "the ground of the church the same way he did".

How dare anyone else besides Lee publish Watchman Nee and offer different translations from Chinese to English? What an offense!

I was gullible and never checked what Kuang really preached about the church ground. Darn it! Might have saved me nearly 4 decades to find out Witness Lee didn't have the corner on the truth market.

This year is year 40 from when I met TLR saints at my college. I'm grateful they preached to me about God's eternal purpose, I got saved, and started a life with Jesus Christ as all! I just wish their gospel didn't add so much that isn't in the Bible and leave so much out that is. I'm still getting my head and heart cleared out from all the error there. Irony of ironies: It took me 15 years almost totally away from TLR in the Bible and prayer plus 18 years partially and then fully in "Christless Christianity" to find out what was missing and some of what was extra. The quest for "The Truth that is in Jesus" continues, and I appreciate the discussions on these boards toward that.

[TLFisher]

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?

Conversely, Kaung knew what Lee was up to and still invited him anyways.....

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Kaung had no intention of continuing in the teaching of Brother Nee concerning the ground of the church.

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

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

Nah, I only pitch regulation soft balls. But your answer to my question has enough holes in it to qualify as a world class wiffle ball. In fact, I think it's still floating and fluttering around as I write this.

Here is my answer to your intriguing question: A local church is the called out assembly made up of all born again believers in Christ at a time and in a place (city, town, village, pueblo, etc.).

Excellent! This is what the VAST majority of evangelical/orthodox Christians would say (in so many words, maybe not as eloquent and succinct as you). So why not just stop here? So why add to this fine definition? I think if the earliest Christians had continued with this definition, and held to it throughout the ages, we wouldn't see nearly as much fragmentation in the Body of Christ. Nevertheless, the Lord has seen fit to let the Church "work out her own salvation" in this matter. She is still quite the work in progress, this awkward and gangly little-girl-bride-to-be. And the sooner you Local Churchers realize that "we're all in this together", the sooner you will find yourselves part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

What I think you really want to know is: Whether they recognize they are members of the church in that place where they live or not does not affect their position as a member of the local church however their refusal to meet with other genuine believers on the ground of oneness does negatively affect their testimony.

I think you should have quit while you were ahead my brother. Because now you're going to force me to put your answer through my Local Church/Witness Lee translation machine. Ok here goes....rattle, rattle, ching, ching, ding, ding, snap, crackle, pop......ok, here it comes....

Translation:
Even though your assembly/fellowship is meeting as a gathering of genuine, born again believers who hold to all the essential items of the Christian faith and the genuine Gospel, this is not good enough to qualify your assembly/fellowship as a genuine local church. Even IF you don't take any kind of name except "the church in anytown" you still do not qualify as a genuine local church. Even IF you are the ONLY church in a city/locality and meet as a gathering of genuine, born again believers who hold to all the essential items of the Christian faith and the genuine Gospel, this is not good enough to qualify your assembly/fellowship as a genuine local church. Actually, we don't give a flying flip if you practice any of the above. You must however, totally and unconditionally accept and fully imbibe the person and work of Witness Lee. Oh we don't actually say "the person and work"...we prefer to use more palatable terms such as "deputy authority" and "the Ministry".

Now, I have a question for you or the gallery: What is the difference between Jews who live in Israel and Jews who live in NY? Are they both Jews? If so, what is the difference?

I think I'm going to have our in-house theologian/apologist, the apostle Paul, handle this one:

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. (Romans 2:28,29)

I'm going to put a little twist on what the apostle was explaining to the Jewish Christians there in Rome: "For no gathering of Christians is the church who are merely Christians meeting outwardly as the local church, for your meeting is outward and physical. But the true oneness and testimony of the church is not confirmed by our outward and physical place of meeting, but is confirmed by God and testified to the world by our actions, deeds and ministry stemming from our heart for our brothers and sisters and neighbors, and animated and sustained by the Holy Spirit, not by any man made doctrine or practice."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

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

Terry,

See the definition I provided to UntoHim.

They are the same.

Drake

[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 stand on what she perceives to be the ground of oneness. (She did sign off with, "Your sister in Christ, .....), but the subject is evocative to her and to those who hold the 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".) He shared something very important that I ran by Don Hardy who confirmed it and wants to get back to me. This is mind-blowing.

I think it is fair to analyze this teaching and be honest about it, and other matters that have been adversely effecting God's people in "the local churches"..

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.)

[Drake]

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.)

Sure, I see that.

I have observed that those churches that actually own property, verses renting the YMCA or some other place, often say something similar like "The church in (city) meets here" or "a meeting hall of the church in (city).

Drake

[Indiana]

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".)

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)

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

[Drake]

[QUOTE=Indiana;74191][QUOTE=Indiana;74106]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".)

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)

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

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.

Her assessment is insightful. It is the logical conclusion.... they put Brother Lee on a pedestal. Always turns out bad.

Thanks for sharing.

Drake

[Koinonia]

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 issue, as always, is correlating the universal church with the Local Church movement.

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.

Why do you need to retract? What is the source of division? The division itself, or the person is bothered by it?

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)

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

Putting Witness Lee on an apostolic pedestal is exactly what is toxic (and weird) about the Local Church movement.

[aron]

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)

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

"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.

[Ohio]

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."

It also shows the LC tendency to be extremely tough and demanding with potential rivals, and so tolerant and patient with underlings. Kind of explains why LC leaders have no peers.