Kaung and Lee Lines in America - A History

[Indiana]

http://lordsrecovery.us/LeeKaungLinesinAmerica.pdf

Having spent 30 years in the local churches under the ministry of Witness Lee and the last three years in fellowship with Stephen Kaung-associated assemblies, I have found the fellowship in both groups to be so similar and their hearts much the same for carrying out God’s eternal purpose in building up the one Body of Christ.

Where I live, there is a group that calls themselves the church in Seattle, (where I used to meet); and another group here which calls themselves Seattle Christian Assembly, (where I now meet). They have no difference in their basic statement of the faith regarding what is essential to believers in “the fellowship”. And, their basic understanding, doctrinally, of the church and of keeping the oneness of the Body of Christ is essentially the same. Yet, they cannot be one for a testimony in Seattle.

It is the same in New York where Stephen Kaung was asked to address New York’s past and his relationship with Witness Lee. He noted that there was one point about the church ground that he could not conscientiously accept and that Witness Lee had become adamant about. That separating factor managed to survive till today.

Note: Corrections welcome. I hope this can be a vitriol-free thread. I do like my basic positioning and perspective for writing and bringing attention to the relevant history covered.

[Freedom]

Lee's legacy is tainted by two factors which have become increasingly apparent. 1) He overstated his relationship with Nee and 2) he used the ground of locality doctrine to distance himself from his peers.

By every indication, during the beginning of the LCM in the U.S., Lee was regarded as a mentor because he had worked with Nee. There were others who had worked with Nee, and I suppose they could have filled the same role. Lee just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Somewhere along the way, Lee managed to discredit Nee's other coworkers as not having had as close of a relationship with Nee as he did. Perhaps no one will ever know what was the case, but suffice to say, after Nee's imprisonment, Lee could have made any claims he wanted to about his relationship with Nee.

It had always been my assumption that the practice of "local churches" in China is exactly what was emulated in the U.S. when it began here. It now seems very certain that wasn't the case. The disagreements that Lee had with those like Kaung and others highlight that point. If they had indeed been practicing Lee's view of local churches in China, it wouldn't make sense that all of Nee's other coworkers would disagree with what Lee was pushing. This is why it seems like Lee at least particular formulated his version of the ground of locality teaching as a means to separate himself from his peers.

[Drake]

If the only point of disagreement was the church ground then we only need to examine Brother Nee's messages on the topic to understand who represented Bro Nee more closely.

I think that is very clear.

[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.
-

[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.
-

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

[Ohio]

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

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.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

That's exactly right. In Nee's view, that would be a disqualification.

[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.

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

[Freedom]

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

When Nee used the word local, I see a specific context implied. It was in contrast to organization or outside missions. In The Normal Christian Church Life he said the following:

The churches in Scripture are intensely local. We never find any federation of churches there; they are all independent units. (TNCCL Ch 7)

Nee's concern was over outside control, over some outside factor being the basis of assembling together. The following further clarifies Nee's view of locality:

If in a given place anyone believes on the Lord, as a matter of course he is a constituent of the church in that place. No subsequent "joining" is required of him. Provided he belongs to the Lord, he already belongs to the church in that locality; and since he already belongs to the church, his belonging cannot be made subject to any condition. If before recognizing a believer as a member of the church we insist that he "join" us or that he resign his connection elsewhere, then "our church" is decidedly not one of the churches of God. If we impose any conditions of membership upon a believer in the locality, we are immediately in an unScriptural position, because his being a member of the local church is conditioned only by his being a believer in the locality. A local church is a church which comprises all the children of God in a given locality. (TNCCL Ch 5)

It is clear from the above quote that Lee's idea of a group needing to declare itself to be the church in X or "take the ground" is not what Nee taught. Nee taught that a church is the church in that locality by default. Lee taught that a specific "standing" must be taken. This is exactly why Kaung felt that for Lee to insist that they call themselves the church in New York City was going too far.

[Drake]

Freedom,

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

Thx
Drake

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Drake

Freedom,

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

Thx
Drake

Lee's teaching:

If we are to have the practice of the church, we must take a definite standing, and this standing must not be a wrong standing but the right standing—the standing on the ground of the church, the ground of oneness. (The Heavenly Vision, Ch 2)

Nee's teaching:

No subsequent "joining" is required of him. Provided he belongs to the Lord, he already belongs to the church in that locality; and since he already belongs to the church, his belonging cannot be made subject to any condition.

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.

[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.

On standing:

“Please remember this one thing: The church must stand on the ground of locality. For many years we have been standing on this ground, rejecting all that is not in keeping with this ground, rejecting all other labels. Any group which does not take the locality as its ground is not the church. “ Watchman Nee, Further Talks on the Church Life

Drake

[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.

[Ohio]

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

Book teachings mean nothing, actual practice means everything.

When Lee was confronted with irregularities between the teachings in Nee's book and actual practices at LSM, he shut down the questionings, "I know what Nee said, I was there in the meetings."

[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. ....

Freedom,

No. Not semantics. You are misunderstanding and wrongly applying what Nee said about a local gathering. He was clear on the ground of locality. He was firm and his later ministry became even stronger on this point.

Nee covered both ends of the spectrum on deviation from the biblical ground of a local church. He warned against the Federation as you say, and yet he also spoke against the idea of several congregations in a locality.

Here is his fellowship on the matter:

"What is the meaning of a congregational church? It means that there can be several congregations within each locality, each having a unity within itself and each independent of the others. This is a very serious matter. The unity of congregationalism is a mistake. The mistake of the international church goes to one extreme, causing many localities to have one church, but the mistake of the congregational churches goes to the opposite extreme, causing one locality to have many churches. The Roman Catholic Church is at one end, with many localities having one church, and the congregational churches are at the other end, with one locality having many churches. This is like a pendulum that swings to one side with many localities having one church and then swings to the other side with one locality having five to ten churches. In the last century the Brethren were raised up, but some of them fell into congregationalism. They were mainly separated into the Closed Brethren and the Open Brethren. The Closed Brethren are still on the side of the united church; the Open Brethren have gone to the other side and become congregations, “chapel” assemblies. They may have one assembly on one street and another assembly on another street, each having nothing to do with the other. This means they have many churches in one locality.

Therefore, we must see clearly before God that in the Bible there is one locality with one church, or in short, one locality, one church. This is the principle in the Bible. If we study the matter of the church, we must be able to understand this principle of one locality, one church. Every mistake comes from violating this principle. One locality, one church is the pendulum. When it swings to one side, it is wrong because it causes three or four localities to have one church or the whole world to have one church. When it swings to the opposite side, it is also wrong because it causes one locality to have several or many churches. There is something abnormal in connection with the locality, or there is something abnormal in connection with the church. In the Bible there is one locality, one church." Further Talks on the Church Life Pages 123-124 Watchman Nee

Again, there is no daylight between these two ministers Nee and Lee. they are like two peas in a pod.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Therefore, we must see clearly before God that in the Bible there is one locality with one church, or in short, one locality, one church. This is the principle in the Bible.

First of all, the Bible does not say there is one city or one locality for each church. Several verses have indicated that more than one church / assembly existed in a city. For example Romans 16.5 and Colossians 4.15.

Secondly, I read once that an early cities were defined by walking distance. This was true for centuries even in America prior to the industrial revolution, "From the colonial era until the late nineteenth century, US cities were walking cities. Because most Americans lived on farms, cities were small, compact, and centrally oriented: everything was located within walking distance. Only wealthy people had access to transportation by horse, and city dwellers needed to live within a short distance of where they worked, shopped, and carried out all their activities."

Thirdly, whatever Lee taught was incidental, it was never put in practice.

[Freedom]

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.

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.

[Evangelical]

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.

He did not write "if a local gathering already existed", he wrote:

"Please remember that a church can only be established in a locality where there is no church. If there is a church in a certain locality, we can only join it; we cannot set up another one."

You can see he used the word church, not gathering. A church, according to Nee, has a precise definition:

"Anything that comes short of a locality cannot establish a church. If there is no locality, there is no church."

" If any group is not built upon the ground of locality, we can see that it is not the church. "

"Once we disregard locality, we immediately lose the ground of the church."

So Nee could never have regarded a free/non-denom group as being a church because they disregard the locality. So according to Nee's definition, a "free group/non-denom" is not a church because it is not established on the ground of the locality. They are established on the basis of being sectarian/split from the church /denomination they are free from.

Also,
"In the New Testament there is one method and one alone of dividing the Church into churches, and that God-ordained method is division on the basis of locality."

A division on the basis of being free or non-denominational is clearly not what Nee had in mind.

[Ohio]

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.

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.

[Ohio]

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.

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!

[TLFisher]

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.

I read this book in 1996. It touched my conscience to see our teachings doesn't match our practices.

[Drake]

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.

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

[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!

Everyone should read message 54 and take to heart it’s exhortation.

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

[leastofthese]

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

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?

[Ohio]

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?

I don't plan to compare the version from the Green Volumes with the Online version. I'll let Drake compare them. It's a well known fact that LSM edits and sanitizes Lee's messages for public consumption.

I'm saying that Lee's wholesale judgments in that message on the entire body of Christ are just pathetic!

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.

Read the message.

[Drake]

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?

Oh stop.

Read what I said and cease the phony melodrama.

[Evangelical]

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.

Is that the case for the book "Further talks on the church life" that we are referencing here? If so, you should be able to provide clear proof i.e. a LSM version compared with a non-LSM version.

[Freedom]

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

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.

[Drake]

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.

You can speculate all you like. Live it up. I don’t care.

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.

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?

Nevertheless, the burden falls on you to make your compelling argument based on what is available. So, which of Kaung’s books have you read that cause you to give his books precedence? And what exactly did he say?

Drake

[awareness]

So no one caught this point in Indiana's link:

Watchman Nee met with Shanghai Christian Assembly till 1952. (It was not called the church in Shanghai.)

[Indiana]

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....

“….in 1948, [Nee] changed his view. One year prior to the political regime change, Nee proposed a radical shift from his major principle. He called for all the relatively independent Local Churches to join a monopoly under the leadership of the apostle (delegated authority) and the leader was Nee himself.” _Lily Hsu

In February 1947, Witness Lee, accompanied by Wang Peizhen and Li Lajie (Rachael Lee), arrived in Fuzhou. He had been invited to speak at the regional “special meetings” for the local coworkers. They had already planned to have fellowship with Nee afterward. At that time, there were twenty-seven local church leaders asking to join their fellowship with Nee.

As Lee wrote,
"Following the conference in Foochow (Fuzhou), we stayed with Watchman another two weeks to fellowship with him that the recovery of his ministry must be sped up. When the other coworkers and leading ones heard about this fellowship, they also would not leave, but asked us to obtain permission from Watchman that they might also participate in the fellowship. At first he would not give his permission, but on further entreaty, he agreed for them to be present on the condition that they would sit a distance away from him in another section of his spacious living room. Only Peace Wang (Wang Peizhen), Rachel Lee (Li Lajie), and I sat together with him for fellowship. I opened the fellowship by asking him why all the churches in the provinces of Fukien (Fujian) and Kwantung (Guangdong, Canton) were filled with confusion. Immediately he responded by releasing a message on the line of Jerusalem. The word pulled out of him for over an hour.

We sat there astonished. To our surprise a sister sitting among those far away burst out,

“Why should we not do it right now according to Brother Nee’s message?” Brother Nee responded, “If you wish to do it, you must all hand yourself over to the work (the ministry). Sign a note indicating your consecration, and pass it on to Brother Lee.” This they all did.When the leading brothers of the church in Foochow heard about this, they came that evening and handed over both themselves and the church to the work. This stirred up all the saints in town, and Watchman decided to call a meeting of the whole church. He asked me to speak at that meeting, but I told him strongly that if he would not go and speak, I would not even attend the meeting. He therefore took up the burden and spoke at that meeting. All of us realized that this was the beginning of the recovery of his ministry. Hundreds of us rejoiced over this. These events transpired in March 1948. (Witness Lee, Chapter 33, Sect. 3)

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.

[Ohio]

Thanks for this post Indiana.

Except for W. Lee, every other "witness" who knew W. Nee both before and after his six year excommunication from 1942 thru 1948, has told us that Nee changed, seriously changed.

.

[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.

[TLFisher]

I tend to hold the view Lee influenced Nee's change in 1948. Those who disagree with my view, that's okay.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

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

You may be right about this, Terry.

After much personal study, I finally came to the conclusion that no part of W. Lee's account of history should be believed without independent corroboration.

[Ohio]

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.

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.

[Freedom]

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.

My speculation is not coming out of nowhere. It is based on Nee/Lee's own materials as well as third party sources. Early on in the thread, Drake stated the following: "yet concerning the ground of the church there is no daylight between Bros Nee and Lee. They taught exactly the same thing."

This is the kind of talk that I consider to be nonsense, and I heard it time and time again in the LC. History indicates Nee changed his views and the things he emphasized, so it would be impossible for anyone to have taught the exact same thing as Nee.

For example, in 1948, the emphasis shifted to handing everything over to the work. In the context of what Nee previously taught concerning autonomy, his later teaching wasn't consistent. As we know, Lee sought to uphold Nee's later teachings, but that doesn't mean what Lee taught was an accurate representation of Nee. That just means that what Lee taught was a representation of select things that Nee taught.

[Freedom]

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.

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.

[Freedom]

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?

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.

[TLFisher]

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.

There may be more, but at the forefront there's Toronto and Vancouver in Canada and Accra in Ghana. Then there's ones with absolute split from LSM fellowship in Rosemead, CA and Moses Lake, WA. Concerning Moses Lake ones who preferred LSM fellowship moved to Spokane, Bellevue or other Washington state localities where there was a LSM/LC.

[TLFisher]

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.

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.

[Ohio]

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.

"There are different ministries, but the same Lord." -- I Cor 12.5

.

[Drake]

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.

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

[Drake]

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.

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

Drake

[Ohio]

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.

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

That's because you have limited yourself to Lee as your only source of information.

[Drake]

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.

No.

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

You keep confusing those two.

Drake

[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.

Well freedom,

Perhaps you can answer the question. What is Stephen Kaung’s ministry? And in answering it please let us know the basis for your answer. That is, cite the reference from Stephen Kaung.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

No.

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

You keep confusing those two.

Drake

Sorry, bro.

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

It is you who are confused.

[UntoHim]

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.

So Witness Lee had the power to grant "first right of refusal" on whether or not an assembly of believers were a legitimate local church? Kaung was in NY and established a local church before Lee was there. Lee had no right or business demanding anything from Kaung and his established local church. Even a genuine, legitimate apostle named Paul was careful not to "build on someone else's foundation" (Romans 15:20)

With all this said, we all know that Witness Lee already had a well documented track record by this point. He was accustomed to hiring and firing elders at his personal whim. Sizable Local Church assemblies were split up into "For Witness" or "Against Witness" camps. Is it any surprise that Lee would try to pull the same game the minute he landed upon our fair shores here in America?

Thankfully, Stephen Kaung had the intestinal and spiritual fortitude to stand up against Witness Lee. Now, 50+ years later we can be assured that Kaung made the right decision. The fruit of his ministry stands as clear testimony that it was he that chose to stand with God, his Word and the true testimony of Christ and the Church, while Lee was trying to force them into conforming to a movement of a man and his so-called ministry.
-

[Drake]

Indiana>”….in 1948, [Nee] changed his view. One year prior to the political regime change, Nee proposed a radical shift from his major principle. He called for all the relatively independent Local Churches to join a monopoly under the leadership of the apostle (delegated authority) and the leader was Nee himself.” _Lily Hsu ”

Indiana,

I am not sure what compels you to reference Lily Hsu as if she has an ounce of credibility on this topic.

She was a young sister at the trial of Brother Nee who collaborated with the Communist government to criticize Brother Nee AND the church. Her faith was weak. She adopted the Communist party line and their fabrications in her open condemnation and was a tool for their evil persecution of brothers and sisters. She was in her emotions, angry, and an exaggerator. Now having participated in the evil rancorous court that persecuted Christians for holding onto their faith you parade her around here like a model witness. You not only associate yourself with the unrighteousness of those events but you multiply it in the present.

Lily Hsu has no credibility on the teachings of Watchman Nee. She obviously never understood what they nor what Brother Nee stood for. Her actions contributed to his torture and languishing in prison, separated from all that he loved while she gets on with her life, studies to be a doctor, and now she is an expert on Watchman Nee and his teachings? I don’t think so.

Drake

[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.

I suggest you read what Jerusalem Principle was about. It was not a departure from the ground of locality.

Drake

[Drake]

UntoHim>”? Kaung was in NY and established a local church before Lee was there”

But he didn’t and wouldn’t. That’s the point!

[UntoHim]

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

No.

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

You keep confusing those two.

Drake

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.

[Drake]

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.

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

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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



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.).

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.

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?

Drake

[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

[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.

[Ohio]

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

If the big church in Jerusalem, the "headquarters" of the N.T. church, was such a healthy pattern of love and grace and truth, then the Head of the body would never have seen fit to use the Romans to destroy it.

[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 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?

[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.....

[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.

[Ohio]

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.

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

[Indiana]

www.lsmradio.com/todays-broadcast.html

Since I was 24 I took the teaching ABSOLUTELY that there should only be one church in a city. It was only recently, at 71, that I could be open to discuss the ground being something other than what our songs and teaching taught us. "Do you see them in the cities, meeting on the local ground".

It has helped me to be meeting with believers whose history also goes back to Watchman Nee in China, and to realize that we don't have the deterrent factor of referring to ourselves as "the church in Seattle" which awaits seeking believers, as a possible stumbling block to them.

Neither is there even a bookroom displaying ministry books from one man, or any man at all, and nothing about a minister of the age, another stumblingblock.

In the link is today's radio message by LSM that happens to mention the ground in a way that WL ministered in 1957 with Christ as the focus and center. That is, Brother Lee spoke a word that was just the same teaching TA Sparks held and also Stephen Kaung holds, except WL included a secondary word on locality. You have to listen for his word on "the ground"during his fellowship; he slips it in there in his speaking on Christ as the ark with the tabernacle (the church) for God's testimony in order to have the ground for the building of the church and the kingdom.

Ron Kangas in the New York conference also emphasized this approach in referring to the ground and also added the rather secondary-sounding explanation for the boundary of locality.

So, if the focus is on "Christ-experienced will produce the building", He's the only way", and the legality of locality is thrown out, THIS IS THE POSITION TAKEN AT SCA AND THE OTHER ASSEMBLIES.

it has also helped me to see how I am treated by those "meeting on the "local ground." That delineation factor of claiming to be "the church" is there between us. And this coupled with "putting Witness Lee on an apostolic pedestal" are the serious factors of division in "the local churches" that have stumbled many. Walking only in love and holding only to the essentials of the faith will restore the oneness.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

[Koinonia]

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

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").

[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").

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

[Ohio]

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

You have "independently assessed that the vitriol and despising of Brother Lee is due to our exaltation and disappointment?"

Are you joking? You got third party confirmation of this?

Lee and his cadre of minions are responsible for his exaltation, and the saints' disappointment is due to his behavior abusing and stumbling the children of God.

[Ohio]

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

Who is she?

[Koinonia]

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

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.

[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.

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

[Koinonia]

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

Drake, yes, your whole group idolizes Witness Lee. Every organization within your group is built around promoting Witness Lee. LSM, FTTA, Rhema, DCP, BFA, etc., etc. Lee has been dead for 20 years, yet your morning devotional material (HWMR) has to be Lee. Your Sunday morning sharing has to be Lee. It is all about Witness Lee.

[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.

[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.

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

[leastofthese]

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

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.

[Drake]

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.

Ok LofT.

You don’t hate. You pity.

Either can be toxic when expressed.

That was the sisters observation.

Drake

[aron]

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!

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?

[Indiana]

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?

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.

[Ohio]

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

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

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

One.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

One.

Drake

Yo Drake did you sign that "loyalty pledge?"

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yo Drake did you sign that "loyalty pledge?"

One. Don’t divert.

Show one.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

One. Don’t divert.

Show one.

Drake

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.

[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.

One.

Provide one quote where I defended Philip Lee.

Waiting.......

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok LofT.

You don’t hate. You pity.

Either can be toxic when expressed.

That was the sisters observation.

Drake

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

One.

Provide one quote where I defended Philip Lee.

Waiting.......

Drake

Responses to Drake's challenges on the other thread.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

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

Right. That is what the sister said. It is the reality in this forum.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Responses to Drake's challenges on the other thread.

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

[Ohio]

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

Drake, can all you do is twist things? You're taking things out of context.

What makes this forum so valuable is that it gets to the heart of the matter. It strikes the axe at the root. Drake supports a publisher named LSM which foments division around the globe, which brings churches under their legalistic bondage, which has long hidden a corrupt management, and which attacks those who would speak their conscience and shine a light on their unrighteous practices.

True to form, Drake then attacks me for bringing up these facts as so-called "ad hominems," claiming that I cause this forum to be toxic, chasing away current LC members, and accusing him of defending the sins of the former manager of LSM. While I never directly claimed that he defended Philip Lee's many sins, where was he when Philip laid waste many beloved brothers and sisters? How can he condone his silence? By claiming to be "one" with the brothers? By professing ignorance? Remember that, "Inaction in the face of injustice makes a person morally guilty of the injustice."

But here is what the Apostle says (2Cor 6) about actions like his:

• What partnership has righteousness with lawlessness?
• What fellowship has light with darkness?
• What harmony has Christ with Belial?
• What par has a believer with an unbeliever?
• What agreement has the temple of God with idols?

Paul also says in 2 Tim 2.19, "Let everyone that names the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness."

[Drake]

Ohio>”Drake, can all you do is twist things? You're taking things out of context. ”

Nope.

Cite one example where I defended Philip Lee.

No twisting. No wordy explanations on your part. Prove your point.

One.

Drake

[Indiana]

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.

Mallon’s Reaction to LSM

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!”

It didn’t make sense to Bill and to many others what was going on:

“How could such a so-called man of the Spirit (WL) hand over a spiritual work to a man of the flesh (PL)?!?! It was repulsive, let alone depressive. It was once brought to my attention that Witness Lee appreciated Philip Lee because this son of his turned Witness Lee’s ministry and the LSM into a money-making business.

“Witness Lee first got off-track when he deviated from his original principle. He said in the 60's that the churches should not be for the ministry and should not build up the ministry, but that the ministry should be for the churches and build up the churches. This he reversed dramatically in 1974 when he moved to Anaheim for the purpose of centralizing his ministry and decentralizing his focus on the churches.

(1) At first his ministry was the center and he expected all the churches to strengthen, support, and give allegiance to it.

(2) Later, WL himself became the center, and everyone and all the churches were judged according to their loyalty to the "minister."

(3) After this, WL expected everyone to give allegiance and financial support to the LSM bookroom, and whoever failed to acknowledge and support the bookroom fell from his favor and were judged disloyal.

(4) Finally, WL's ministry deteriorated to an all-time low, to a hole below the pit, when he gradually installed PL to be in charge of even the training, expecting all the churches to give their allegiance and loyalty to his son in (and of) the flesh.

“These were the heavy, unbearable feelings in our hearts. As time went by, we tried to do something about it. But characteristically, when WL was approached about such matter, he was like a little Chinese man who suddenly burst into a nine-foot intimidating giant.”

Bill had personally written three letters to Witness Lee “to politely, and yet, plainly, bring the troubling issues before him”. Bill also conversed with him by phone, in his attempts to bring his attention to the serious problems incurred in the Southeast churches at the hands of Philip Lee and others representing LSM.

Witness Lee did not listen, as was the testimony of many others especially during the late 1980s turmoil in the U. S., Europe, Taipei, and other Far East churches.
(B.M. email, 2006)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Cite one example where I defended Philip Lee.

I don't think the big issue here is defending Philip Lee, but defending Witness Lee. How can anyone defend what happened? How can anyone defend what WL did in putting his admittedly "unspiritual" son (WL said, "I can hire an unspiritual person as my personal chef to cook in my kitchen") in a position to damage the saints and the churches?

Even if PL had not molested the sisters, and/or if other "unspiritual" son TL's Daystar didn't lose the saints' money, it's still a case of a minister putting his family's interests, and personal interests, above the church. Period. WL taught against this repeatedly, and urged all to consider the Body and be restricted by this consideration. But he didn't do it.

How can anyone defend this?

And in an atmosphere such as found in the LC, how can anyone object to things that are amiss? Those who tried got smeared in the book Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Their persons and motives were attacked in print.

How can anyone correct errors in such an atmosphere? You either defend or you are complicit in silence.

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!”

WL taught so much and spoke so much on knowing the Body and caring for the Body. But in promoting and caring for the selfish interests of sons PL and TL he showed no care for the Body. How can anyone defend this?

[Drake]

Aron>”I don't think the big issue here is defending Philip Lee, but defending Witness Lee”

Big issue or not Ohio leveled the accusation that I defended Philip Lee.

Then without providing a single instance where I did it, he tries to reframe the accusation into something else.

That is the issue right here, right now. He could admit he was wrong but that is apparently not available to him.

Drake

[Indiana]

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.

http://makingstraightthewayofthelord...TwoVisions.pdf

A brother from the Midwest shares his experience of dealing with the conflicting visions in the church life.

[Indiana]

The message on the church that Ron Kangas and Ed Marks combined to share has been removed from the list of audios available from the New York conference Nov 2017.

The article on the Kaung and Lee lines shows the principle of division at its earliest point in America, which involves Kaung and Lee directly, both having come to the US to represent the vision and recovery of the New Testament church life, including the application of the Scriptural principle of receiving believers according to Christ alone.

What took place there between brothers Lee and Kaung was seemingly a small thing, but was not. In my notes of the NY message, Ron Kangas said, "there is one Body and keeping the oneness of the spirit is to keep the oneness of the Body. If we don't receive all who God receives, frankly, we are being sectarian and divisive. And if so, we may talk, write, and preach, but we are not living the Body life.

So this is serious, as a practical reality we need to have the assurance in the Lord's presence that all who have been redeemed and received by God we also receive."



Some may say it was up to Stephen Kaung to submit to Brother Lee. But Brother Kaung was content to have the reality of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace with all the members, and under the Head of the Body, Christ. This testimony "for the local church" was enough when Lee, Kaung, and W. Nee were practicing the church life in China according to the Scriptural ground of oneness in the Shanghai Christian Assembly.

But things would change when Witness Lee moved to Taiwan.


http://makingstraightthewayofthelord...TwoVisions.pdf

[Drake]

Indiana>”If we don't receive all who God receives, frankly, we are being sectarian and divisive. And if so, we may talk, write, and preach, but we are not living the Body life.

So this is serious, as a practical reality we need to have the assurance in the Lord's presence that all who have been redeemed and received by God we also receive.”

This is the message I have heard for forty years. It attracted me to the Lords Recovery. It kept me in the Lords Recovery. God willing, I will be kept.

Drake

[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.

[Drake]

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.

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

[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.

[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.

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

[Ohio]

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

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.

[Drake]

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.

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

[Kevin]

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.

Ohio, these Lcers never accept their mistakes.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ohio, these Lcers never accept their mistakes.

Ok. But what do you think about the actual question JJ asked and my response? That is what we we’re discussing.

[Ohio]

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.

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ohio, these Lcers never accept their mistakes.

They are probably not "mistakes," but craftily developed strategies to deceive.

[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.

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

[Ohio]

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

If there ever was a group with a "canned narrative" it's the LCM.

Every meeting "canned Lee."

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

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

You too have a canned narrative about quarantine, PL, Etc. that you deliver in the same way. Rather than address what is actually being discussed you recite your canned lines. It is your happy place I suppose for from there everything fits into your straw universe... the place of your own making where everything makes perfect sense like you need it to. My response to JJ doesn’t fit into that narrative. I’d prefer you agree or disagree with the content of my post and explain your reasons because you are an intelligent guy, with experience, and likely have something to contribute to people both inside and outside the Lords Recovery. Why you allow yourself to play this unbecoming role is puzzling.

I’m not trying to wound you Ohio. Speaking for myself I’d much rather have real conversation with you. There are times when I have learned from you, but not from these bullying antics you have been displaying.

Drake

[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.

I noticed Drake made liberal use of the past tense...we received...we held...I suspect he did this because he knows the current Local Church of Witness Lee is about 180 degrees/polar opposite from what he describes here. And the simple fact is that the Local Church never actually practiced anything close to what Drake wrote above. Maybe, just maybe there was a little taste of this up in Berkeley and Santa Cruz back in the early 70s, but as soon as Witness Lee caught wind that those crazy kids up there were actually practicing what Watchman Nee taught, he put the big kibosh on it, and proceeded to do what he always did....fire any elder who didn't follow his every whim, and then hire puppet elders to do his personal bidding.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I noticed Drake made liberal use of the past tense...we received...we held...I suspect he did this because he knows the current Local Church of Witness Lee is about 180 degrees/polar opposite from what he describes here. And the simple fact is that the Local Church never actually practiced anything close to what Drake wrote above. Maybe, just maybe there was a little taste of this up in Berkeley and Santa Cruz back in the early 70s, but as soon as Witness Lee caught wind that those crazy kids up there were actually practicing what Watchman Nee taught, he put the big kibosh on it, and proceeded to do what he always did....fire any elder who didn't follow his every whim, and then hire puppet elders to do his personal bidding.

I can’t speak about Berkeley or Santa Cruz in that time and place.

However, just to be clear, I used past tense because I was describing events I personally experienced in churches over forty years and up to the present. My experience spanned churches in the US north and south, east and west, and abroad. I don’t see any difference today in that welcoming of all believers. However, perhaps Ron mentioning our need to receive all believers, as Indiana quoted from the Thanksgiving 2017 conference, reveals that it could be a problem or the beginnings of one. I don’t know of any in particular but one could infer that speaking had something in view.

Drake

[Indiana]

http://lordsrecovery.us/DeputyAuthor...dofOneness.pdf

Blending Brothers Teach (Nee's teaching)

We Cannot Follow Those Who Deviate from the Truth

“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. In some cases, the assertion of authority compromises the standing of a local church, making it instead a local sect. This is because the leaders' claims to authority become the basis of receiving believers into fellowship.
https://www.afaithfulword.org/articl...Authority.html


“If anyone thinks that he should not be divisive, he should first bear in mind what it means to be divisive. Being divisive means being divided from the Body. The division in 1 Corinthians 12 refers to a division from the Body (v. 25), not a separation from a group which is not according to the Body." (The Collected Works of W. Nee, vol. 50, p. 820)

“Thus, to depart from a sect is not an act of rebellion.

“A man can revolt only against a legitimate government; he cannot revolt against a government which is itself not legitimate. It is rebellion to separate oneself from a legitimate government, but it is not rebellion to separate oneself from a government that is not legitimate. (Nee, vol. 50, p. 824)

[JJ]

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

Yes. That sounds awesome, Drake. I guess we are both "class of '78" with the local churches. If that is what your local church experience has been and still is, it is good you are still there.

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.

[Drake]

Ohio,

After falsely accusing me of defending Philip Lee, defaming my character by saying my protests to your fabrications were ”craftily devised strategies to deceive”, a clear innuendo that my defense is a work of Satan himself, chasing my posts with snarky comments about me personally and then wrapping yourself in scripture to justify your derogatory statements toward moi.... you have the audacity to object to a comparison of your bullying antics with someone who uses a similar technique?

You recently justified your behavior with this: “What makes this forum so valuable is that it gets to the heart of the matter. It strikes the axe at the root”

Aren’t we getting to the heart of the matter? We are. Are we striking the axe to the root? We are. Is it only valuable when you wield the axe?

As I said, I’m not trying to wound you, but neither will I allow you to redefine what I say. I offered to have conversations with you but I will push back on your mischaracterizing of me and my beliefs.

Drake

[Indiana]

http://lordsrecovery.us/DeputyAuthor...dofOneness.pdf

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


“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. In some cases, the assertion of authority compromises the standing of a local church, making it instead a local sect. This is because the leaders' claims to authority become the basis of receiving believers into

[TLFisher]

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.

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."

[Freedom]

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."

Visitors to our meetings always seemed to make everyone feel uncomfortable. There was the act of appearing to receive the person, but everyone seemed to know it was only a matter of time before the person would get pressured to conform and then would consequently leave and never be seen again.

Quite frankly, I think that many long time LC members have given up on trying to bring in new members. They realize that most people aren't willing to conform to their group, and thus it isn't worth the time and effort.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Indiana

We Cannot Follow Those Who Deviate from the Truth

“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)

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

[ZNPaaneah]

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

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)

[Indiana]

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)

My sheep hear my voice. Two elders from the Far East shared with John Ingalls their experiences. This is a portion of that fellowship.

"One basic item of the change in nature in the Lord’s recovery is that it appears the Lord’s work has become Brother Lee’s work; the churches have become Brother Lee’s churches; and the Lord’s workers have become Brother Lee’s workers. All things have become personalized, and everything appears to require Brother Lee’s approval to be legitimate. He can acknowledge and he can also deny the validity of the Lord’s workers, elders, and even churches. This concept has been injected to all the brothers and sisters, particularly those who have a heart for the Lord. This is how denominations are formed. But the Lord had preserved some for Himself. This situation did not develop suddenly, and we cannot expect it to clear up suddenly."

"Brother Chu Shun Min then told me how that on April 1, 1988, he had a conversation with Brother Lee in the Bay Area. 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.

*I greatly respected these brothers for their years of faithful labor, their knowledge of the Lord and His ways, their maturity in Christ, and their penetrating discernment. Their fellowship was a strong confirmation and encouragement to be steadfast for the truth’s sake. It seemed outwardly that Brothers Chu and Jeng were in a state of retirement from the work, but inwardly they were active and aggressive, praying and watching and fighting in the spiritual warfare. I have been greatly inspired by them. They count very much for the Lord’s interests." (From Speaking the Truth in Love J. I.)

[Indiana]

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.

(From Speaking the Truth in Love, J. I.)

Advertising a minister of the age is unnecessary and troubling to many people. If Paul wasn't dubbed a minister of the age in the scriptures then neither should Watchman Nee or Witness Lee receive that designation.

However, the Lord Jesus did receive a designation. He was "designated the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness out of the resurrection of the dead" (Rom. 1:3-4). What a man! What a God-Man! We have to spare our brothers, Nee and Lee, of man's uplifting of them, inordinately.


This is far away from the early vision of Nee and Lee in China who held that oneness was with Christ alone, and would never have expanded the oneness to a man and a ministry also, and it's exaltation in the church. In LSM's one publication proclamation, Benson Phillips states that "the ministry of Witness Lee is indispensable to our oneness".

But in the beginning it wasn't so.

1963 Witness Lee

Do not say, “I am of Paul” or “I am of Apollos” or “I am of Peter.” Do not regard someone as higher than others. If their ministry is a help to you, take it. You have to realize that you are not for any ministry, but you are for the church, for the expression of the Body of Christ. Do not say that you are for this brother or that brother. This is something fleshly (1 Cor. 3:4). We recognize that all the servants of the Lord are sent by the Lord and are given as gifts to His Body and that they have different ministries. We take all the good matters of these ministries. But if there is anything factious, divisive, we have to be careful.

None of us is here for the ministry. We are all here for the Body, the church. The workers should take the attitude that their work is not for their own ministry, and all the local saints should learn the lesson not to stand for anything other than the church. Simply stand for the local expression of the church, because the local church, not the ministry, is the lampstand for Christ.

By the Lord’s mercy, I am a brother with a ministry here. If the saints here are standing for my ministry instead of the local expression, I have to tell you that you are wrong. You should not stand for any ministry, even my ministry. What you have to stand for is the church, the local church. Any minister with any ministry or any worker with any work who comes here must be for the local church. If it is not for the local church, you have to say, “No, you are going to build up something other than the lampstand, something other than the local expression of the Body. We would not go along with this.” (The Life and Way to Practice the Church Life)

[Indiana]

www.lordsrecovery.us/LeeKaungLinesinAmerica.pdf

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

[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.

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

[Indiana]

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

Your point might win out; there was certainly consensus on being strong for standing on the ground of oneness; notwithstanding, it is calling yourselves THEE church that makes the distinction and a line is crossed that may not be necessary.

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

[Drake]

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.

What line is crossed?

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

I think not.

Drake

[Evangelical]

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.

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.

[Indiana]

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.

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.

[Drake]

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.

Indiana,

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.....exclusionary standings that do not embrace every believer...of baptism, of a personality, of spiritual gifts, of doctrine etc. .

We don’t need to tiptoe around that and we don’t need to apologize for stating what we actually are. ... we are the called out Assembly where ever we live.

Please provide the evidence of “why” that I have bolded above in your note. Either brother Nee or Lee probably said something to that effect in the course of tens of thousands pages. What is your source for that explanation of the name of Shanghai Christian Assembly?

Drake

[Ohio]

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.

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.

[Ohio]

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.....

To continue with your American example ... Are Americans only true American citizens when they declare they are Americans and "take the standing" as Americans?

Your false standing as "the church" does nothing but further division and damage God's people. The Apostle Paul, on the other hand, exhorts us to "stand in freedom." (Galatians 5.1)

[Indiana]

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.

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

[Evangelical]

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.

We know who it is not - Nee is not referring to the denominations.

[Drake]

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

Ok Indiana,

Appreciate your willingness to correct the record about Shanghai and to adjust the tone Thanks.

I will clarify something. I am not promoting Brother Lee or Brother Nee .. I obviously have a deep appreciation for their writings, their vision, their sacrifices for the Lords interests. Yet, theirs are the writings of men, God-men true, according to the principle of incarnation...but not God, and not on par with the Bible. Furthermore, whether some read or use their writings I have no opinion ... only when and if they gained some help from them. I have talked to pastors and Christian leaders that use and appreciate their writings and the Recovery Version with their congregations.... i’m happy for them sincerely. Yet, that is not the goal. 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. I also have Brother Kaung’s books in my library. Were mistakes made? Certainly. For me, that does not change the vision.... human failure and shortcomings do not establish the benchmark for my Christian and church life and practice.

Thanks again,
Drake

[Indiana]

Nee and Lee helped tremendously to break through denominational barriers that brought many of God’s people to appreciate and enjoy the Christ they have today.


Maybe their ways were not noble at times as certainly was true with Witness Lee who was sorrowful in the end for some of his behavior and testified of his personal repentance to the leaders, as follows.


Final Message

"The eyes of the brothers and sisters all need to be opened. Too many things we need to learn. We have acted wrongly in the past, including me, I have to admit. I have had very painful repentance before the Lord. I am very sorry! I am sorry for the Body of Christ - not only for the brothers and sisters among us, but also for the ones in the denominations….We must learn from our past mistakes to receive people according to God's Son...undeviating… not deviating a bit from the path…”
(Chinese New Year Conf., Anaheim, Feb 1997) LSM TRANSCRIPTION



Nee and Lee had substantial contact with the Brethren and with Sparks. These people were of genteel stock, well-mannered and fine – and very watchful of scriptural deviancy. Perhaps their influence was one factor for Nee and Lee to keep the name Shanghai Christian Assembly – it would be judicious to do so, since it would not have gone over well with the Brethren with a doctrinal knife in their back, to come to have fellowship with the Church in Shanghai brothers. Nee and Lee were sensitive about keeping the oneness of the Spirit with other believers and it wasn’t necessary or essential for them to label themselves or they would have! No compromise.


It’s good to help one another and not rely on usually good or excellent sources, such as we’ve learned about LSM - with Nee, Lee, and blending brothers material. We cannot trust that material 100%. It must be scrutinized. Where they are wrong, leaven has entered into the Body, to put it gently; and for this, they themselves must be scrutinized.

Certainly we can’t trust LSM for learning our history. They have not recognized facts, and lean not on their own “eyes”, and understanding, but wholly upon the “sacred writ” of Witness Lee, which includes his canonization of local church history beginning with Watchman Nee.

http://www.lordsrecovery.us/Timeline...hmanNeeEra.pdf

[Ohio]

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.

Unfortunately you have an extremely narrow and dwarfed view of the "functioning of every member." The Bible never limits our functioning in the body to an hour's meeting on Sunday morning. The LSM definition of "functioning" prefers a brief reading from Lee for 60 seconds rather than the Bible's preference for "good works" all week long.

The N.T. has hundreds of verses exhorting every member of the Lord's body to be zealous of good works. W. Lee, however, negates all of those in order to promote his own teachings using a twisted understanding of I Cor 14.26 "whenever you come together, each one has."

What if I showed up one Lord's Day meeting at Drake's LC with a Psalm? Perhaps #119. Like Paul instructed me to do. Would you receive me? Or would I be shown the door? What if the saints found this to be a refreshing alternative to the usual?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

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?

[Drake]

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?

Er, ummmmm

What does that have to do with my point?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Er, ummmmm

What does that have to do with my point?

Hey Popcorn! It has everything to do with your point!

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Er, ummmmm

What does that have to do with my point?

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.

[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.

LofT,

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

Your response about LSM is a non sequitur.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

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

Your response about LSM is a non sequitur.

Drake

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

I do really appreciate that you're not out here pitching Nee & Lee books. That's LSM's job. Besides, there's prolly little hope for much of a market here for those books. It's more profitable for them to go to a captured market.

The problem as I see it, even if you're not promoting Nee & Lee, is rather that you seem to be so enamored with them that you can't help but constantly support them.

That's okay. The problem is not their writings, and their doctrine's and teachings in them. Their problem is their practice doesn't live up to them.

When I first came in I consumed their writings. I was eager to learn as much as I could. And I did. But then after a year or so, and going to be under Ron Kangas in the c. in Detroit, I discovered that Lee wasn't practicing what I learned in them. I let that first one go, and put it on the back shelf for awhile. Eventually however, over the years, that shelf of dismissals (denials at the time), of their practices failing their teachings, the shelf became populated.

Seems to me now, that their writings are just the cover stories, that make them look good ... like the picture of the hamburger sold at fast food joints. It's not the burger in the picture that you get.

It's the same, same. Nee and Lee are selling what looks to be a great burger. But it wasn't what I got when I got my hands on it.

Read Indiana's Timeline of Nee to get glimpses if these incongruities :
http://www.lordsrecovery.us/Timeline...hmanNeeEra.pdf

[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, I assume, was ignited by the content beginning on p. 4 of the Kaung and Lee Lines. He wants the saints to recover the spirit of prayer and of praise that prevailed in the church at that time; and the blueprint is actually there tor a return to the blessing of one accord on the Body ground.

http://www.lordsrecovery.us/LeeKaungLinesinAmerica.pdf

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

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

Naw... that's okay.. I know what 144 says... and I am familiar with "non sequitur" false arguments.... feel free to clarify any correlation you see else no need to spend a minute more....

thanks
Drake

[awareness]

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".

Recovery again ... of the chanting ... He's full of brother Lee's spirit. Lee is there in spirit. Lee... Lee ... Lee ... they may as well chant it ... like the Leebots they are.

[Indiana]

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]

Witness Lee Timeline in US

http://www.lordsrecovery.us/Timeline...ssLeeEraUS.pdf

[Indiana]

www.lordsrecovery.us/LeeKaungLinesinAmerica.pdf

I came into the meeting hall and saw on the table stacks of books free of charge. Something you don't normally see at Seattle Christian Assembly. (They don't have a bookroom where books are sold.)

There were copies of two books in Chinese and English. One by Stephen Kaung called Oneness and Brotherly Love and another by three brothers called Conformed to the Image of His Son, (Lance Lambert, Stephen Kaung and Christian Chen).

It was a welcome sight, and nice to have "variety and unity" on display representing New Testament ministers with NT ministry unto the building up of the Body in love.

[VolkHenry]

Would you happen to have the original PDF? I've been searching for it to read online, and it looks like the host site has been taken down.

Thanks!

- Henry

[Indiana]

Thank you, Henry, I didnt know that. Hope to get it fixed tomorrow, Saturday. If not, You can PM me. Personal Message

[VolkHenry]

Thank you so much!

[Indiana]

I am sorry, Henry. I tried today, Henry, and will try again tomorrow, Sunday.