Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Seems that at some level Lee and Kaung really did agree because Kaung didn't see how he could operate in the same city — even one that is such a size as NYC that there are high=level portions of government that are separated by borough. So at some level, Kaung did believe in the same kind of ground and oneness requirement. Just not the name.
And interesting that Lee insisted on the name.
And it would appear that they parted company over it.
|
I've been thinking about this. The subject of the "ground of locality" is discussed a lot here, but I haven't seen Kaung's view discussed as much. I think it's really interesting to consider the differences between Lee and Kaung. Since they are both the most prominent figures who followed in the footsteps of Nee, you get to see two alternative outcomes of Nee's teachings.
The first thing I was thinking about is what exactly would be the difference between the Lee's view of local churches and Kaung's view of local churches? They supposedly both tried to practice what Nee taught. The main difference between them was obviously the issue of the needing to "take the ground". I went and skimmed through The Normal Christian Church Life and I can see that Nee talked about one church, one city. There is also mention of the ground. Because I was born and raised in the LC, it's hard for me to look at Nee's teaching objectively and see what are the alternative interpretations to what he taught. Yet divergent interpretations is exactly what is seen with Lee and Kaung. There are two different ideas on how the idea of "local churches" should be practiced.
This is just me hypothesizing now, but I think there is a very subtle distinction between the two groups. First of all, it seems like both groups would agree that there should be one church per city. It also seems that both groups would also say that they hold to the idea of rejecting denominations and "not taking a name". Where I think the distinction lies is that those in the LC believe they have to declare themselves as being the "church in X" in order to be the "church in X". It seems Kaung was more inclined to the idea that the "church in X" already exists and there is no need for anyone to declare themselves as such.
The churches influenced by Kaung call themselves things like "Christian Assembly" or "Church Assembly". To me, those kind of names imply that they want their "name" to be held as a designation in the same way that the LCM tries to use "the church in X" as a designation. Those influenced by Kaung might say that there designation is that they are an "assembly of the church in X". That is how I tend view the difference, and I have no idea whether or not this is an accurate assessment, but that seems to me that's the primary distinction between the two groups.
One other thing I would add is that I have seen Nee's church called both the "Shanghai Assembly" and "the church in Shanghai". Obviously LSM calls it the latter, but it begs the question of which "name" did Nee actually use? I would love to know whether or not in practice Nee insisted groups declare themselves as being "the church in X".