Kaung and Lee Lines in America - A History

[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.

[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

[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.

[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!)
-

[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

[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

[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.