Kaung and Lee Lines in America - A History

[Freedom]

Drake,

This is mainly a matter of semantics (though I personally don't feel that Nee always held consistent views). The quotes I posted previously provide some context as to what Nee meant when he spoke about "standing on the ground." That is, Nee was primarily concerned with federation, outside control, outside missions, labels, etc. To him, "standing on the ground" meant standing against such things.

It might appear that Lee spoke about the same thing. But there are hints that to him "standing on the ground" meant something entirely different. To me, the biggest thing that would evidence this is that Lee criticized the non-denominational and free groups just as much as he criticized the denominations. Though Nee did teach a practice of having one church per city, he also clarified that by saying that if a "local" gathering already existed, it should be joined rather than starting a new one. When did Lee ever teach or practice that? Lee taught people to move to different cities and "take the ground" there, regardless of what was there already. In fact, I doubt there was every any significant effort made to see what local gatherings should be joined.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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!

[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.