Kaung and Lee Lines in America - A History

[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?