Erroneous Teaching of Lee Concerning Natural Affection

[Ohio]

This quote is from STEM Publishers, the online go to site for Exclusive Brethren writers. Lee was not the source of this teaching, rather he merely "stole" it from the Brethren.

Leaven and honey were excluded from the meat offering in Luke 2, and it may be well to look at this. Leaven represents evil, and could have no place in the perfect Man. Jesus was absolutely holy. Honey is rather the figure of natural affections, which are good in themselves, but form no part of the offering upon the altar. So our Lord could say to Mary, in John 2, "What have I to do with thee?" We have no doubt as to our Lord's care and love for her from other passages.

The Brethren became famous for inferring the most ridiculous of interpretations from O.T. passages, especially when warring with those they formerly met with. For them everything must be properly interpreted, and it's often amazing what they could dig out of scriptures to bludgeon their opponents and hold their people in bondage.

If you read Brethren literature, e.g. the vindictive GV Wigram, after the Newton and Muller excommunications, you would be amazed at the vitriol-laced interpretations extracted from the Torah, and heaped on these two brothers. For the faithful follower in the Darby Lineage, you would think brother George Muller deserved a far worse judgment than the devil himself. And to think that W. Nee told us these Darby Brethren should be the historical fulfillment of "Philadelphia" the church of brotherly love. Obviously the Savior thought otherwise, and George Muller, while caring for English Orphans, received more direct answers from prayer than perhaps any brother in church history.

The interpretation of honey as "natural affection" was used by Exclusive Brethren to keep their faithful loyal to the program, despite their love for friends and family who might be expelled. This is little different from today's Amish shunning, or what Jewish believers faced being "put out of the synagogue" for believing in Jesus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The interpretation of honey as "natural affection" was used by Exclusive Brethren to keep their faithful loyal to the program, despite their love for friends and family who might be expelled.

So to the Exclusive Brethren honey/natural affection was/is no laughing matter.

But isn't natural affection well, natural? as natural as breathing, eating, urinating, and daily bowel movements, that we couldn't stop if we tried?

I remember the "unspoken" rule about friendships. But still, I developed friendships in the local church that still lasts up to today.

So ... Denying natural affection is unnatural, and denies, and is an assault on, our natural personhood.

Good luck on trying to stop it. That can't be done any more than changing the color of your hair, or the color of your eyes.

Isn't it a childish notion? I remember it on playgrounds when I was a kid : "If you're gonna be friends with so-and-so then you're not my friend." And in the LC out the door you go for being friends. That's how foolish and absurd teaching against natural affection is. Plus, being against "natural" affection is blatantly mean, hateful, and inhumane ; and a cultic attack on you as a person, usurping you from making your own social decisions.

I guess in the LC they want to completely control you. What should that be called?

[Raptor]

I have always understood this teaching of "natural affection" without causing me much trouble at all. There are plenty of negative examples in the Bible (and even in society). Maybe the issue with some is the words "n...a" themselves? Regardless, this thing is real and can cause lots of problems in God´s house.

Part of what I have understood it to be is what James talks about in ch. 2:1-13: that is, personal favoritism, respect of persons, making distinctions among yourselves, showing partiality. You like someone, you have a click with someone, so you favor them and go beyond what God desires or says in His word, sometimes at the expense of others.

This is partly why probably Peter withdrew from the Gentiles, to hang out with the Jews and got him a rebuke from Paul. Also, probably partly why some in Corinth said, "hey we like this guy Apollos...he´s much cooler than Peter, let´s be of Apollos"....Also did not Jacob care more for Joseph, more than his other sons, ...that was part of what caused his brothers' jealousy.

Did not WL seemingly love and care too much for PL, allowing him to hang around, work and promoting him ....going beyond what God prescribes? That is "natural affection". Look what that caused. And did not the leading brothers care too much for the person of WL and PL and did not remove the evil brother but looked the other way? Did they not apologize to PL, to make WL happy? That´s what I understand it is, to love, appreciate, befriend someone in the flesh or with your self, even if it´s "good", but God is not in it or allowing it.

I´ve heard horror stories about churches in central america, where the elders and other saints that are better off and better educated really "like their own class" and are very racist and discriminatory to the poorer saints/ones with more of an indigenous background. When it comes down to sending some to the FTT, guess which ones always go?

Hypothetically, if you push this "na" to an extreme in a church, you can end up with a social club, full of "clicks" and people relating to others based on family, relatives, likes, dislikes, race, "chemistry", background, money, not based on the love of God, in and through the Spirit.

All these are obvious examples with bad results, there maybe many other contexts where friendships and relationships, maybe family based or "my roommate from college based" and never cause any problems.....until the test comes. I still keep in touch with high school friends, but I have prayed for them and seek a way to share something about the Lord. I don´t like to have friends at work or in the world just for the sake of having a friend to "hang out" with or watch the game with. For me befriending someone, to have a real friend you care for is one you want to share with and give the best you have, which is Christ.


(In society one example of this is nepotism, favoritism, "old boy network". )

[Cal]

Natural affection isn't favoritism. It's just the natural feeling of liking people. Storge and agape do not have to be mutually exclusive. I can have unconditional love for people and also have affection for them. God created both feelings.

To my knowledge nowhere does the bible prohibit affection per se. We are to put God first, of course--but that doesn't mean we cannot, in that context, "enjoy all things," including human relationships with others.

Lee was always either/or. He saw everything as an enemy of his truth. Too bad he didn't include his paranoia in that list of enemies. In fact, he should have put it at the top of the list.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Natural affection isn't favoritism. It's just the natural feeling of liking people. [.

But it can easily lead to favoritism. That´s the point, that by being "natural" in the sense of without God, it easily yields different kinds of bad results, favoritism is just one of the possible bad results. So you "naturally like" someone but don´t like another one. God says to like both. Now you easily fell into favoritism.

It´s not about God prohibiting affection. It´s about having affection without God.

You "naturally" love someone, with your own love...till it runs out, then you don´t want to love them anymore. But God says forgive 7x70, and Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You can´t make it.

OR,

You just "naturally like" a sister, but God says no, not that one. But you insist and insist and both of you are damaged.

OR

You just naturally like your friend from college, you have such a good time together. Until that day when he starts telling you this joke about the Lord and using His name in vain. Now the Lord is burning in you to "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, being always ready for a defense...." Yet you "naturally like" your friend so much you don´t want to offend him, so you say nothing, and when you get back home your spirit is dead and you are full of shame.


These kinds of things happen all the time, and the Bible is full of examples like these. If the words "natural affection" cause so much confusion to understand these basic things in God´s word then come up with another phrase.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Raptor

But it can easily lead to favoritism.

Sorry, Raptor, but I think you are off-base. That's LR thinking, IMHO.

Marriage can easily lead to being distracted, so let's ban marriage. Sexuality can lead to lust, so let's ban sex. Eating can lead to gluttony, so let's ban eating. Having kids can lead to bringing the world in your house, so let's ban families. And on and on.

"Anything that is not a need is an indulgence." I actually heard a sister say that, like it was some powerful insight. (She was very grim and tedious person.) I've heard it all. All these things sound very spiritual, but they are man's wisdom, not God's. They are doctrines of demons.

be affectionate by the Spirit

Well, of course. Who ever endorsed anything outside the Spirit?

What causes problems in God's house is living outside the Spirit. There is no need to target affection as some kind of insidious weapon of the enemy. Paul never discouraged affection. He encouraged it. Sounds to me like you have it backwards.

Lee discouraged affection because he wanted all loyalty and affection directed at him. It's a classic ploy of abusive groups to discourage close relationships between members. The goal is to make you emotionally dependent on what the group is selling.

Don't worry about have too much affection, Raptor. Worry about not having enough. Do you think Lee had affection for the people he cut down at the knees? No, I'm sure he told himself, "I can't be natural, shove the knife in."

Nothing personal, Raptor. But the lies of the LR are subtle.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Raptor

I have always understood this teaching of "natural affection" without causing me much trouble at all. There are plenty of negative examples in the Bible (and even in society). Maybe the issue with some is the words "n...a" themselves? Regardless, this thing is real and can cause lots of problems in God´s house.

Perhaps things were different in your neck of the woods, but this is how this was interpreted where I was.

Natural affection meant we should not have friends or relationships in which we do natural things.

Basically saints in the church had no friends after decades in the church. "Natural things" were "common" things, and "common" things were things that were not holy. So every time brothers and sisters were together they had to do "spiritual" things. Shopping together was OK as long as you were shopping for the love feast, or helping a sister in need. Of course, many of the bros/sis broke these rules, but they were not the "healthy" ones.

TC always pooh-poohed friendships in the church, and preferred to emphasize spiritual "companionships."

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Natural affection meant we should not have friends or relationships in which we do natural things.

Basically saints in the church had no friends after decades in the church. "Natural things" were "common" things, and "common" things were things that were not holy. So every time brothers and sisters were together they had to do "spiritual" things. Shopping together was OK as long as you were shopping for the love feast, or helping a sister in need.

That is simply not even human.

I just posted another post down below. I suggested using another phrase other than "natural affection" to help get out of the woods. Maybe this helps,

....do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.
Walk by the Spirit and you shall by no means fulfill the lust of the flesh.
If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit

be affectionate by the Spirit

So the point is you relate to someone according to the spirit, by the Spirit, living by the Spirit, walking by the Spirit. It does not matter if you have to go buy manure with a brother, or change a lightbulb with a sister, or drive together to work. The point is where are you when you do these things, are you in the spirit, by the Spirit, or in yourself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Raptor

That is simply not even human.

Right!

Just take a peek at how we treated each other at times, and one has to wonder at times if we were human or not.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

TC always pooh-poohed friendships in the church, and preferred to emphasize spiritual "companionships."

Going a bit off topic

As I was making my last comment tracing the teaching of natural affection back to Watchman Nee, I couldn't help to think why this forum mostly lacks criticism toward Watchman Nee if much, if not all, of Lee's teaching were derived from him.

And then I thought how similar the lack of criticism of Nee is to that of Titus Chu here as well, especially when I view them all as part of the same polycephalic entity. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this before I start formulating theories?

Anyway, carry on....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Going a bit off topic

As I was making my last comment tracing the teaching of natural affection back to Watchman Nee, I couldn't help to think why this forum mostly lacks criticism toward Watchman Nee if much, if not all, of Lee's teaching were derived from him.

And then I thought how similar the lack of criticism of Nee is to that of Titus Chu here as well, especially when I view them all as part of the same polycephalic entity. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this before I start formulating theories?

Anyway, carry on....

Can you restate your question? I am looking for a rational explanation to what you are asking.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Going a bit off topic

As I was making my last comment tracing the teaching of natural affection back to Watchman Nee, I couldn't help to think why this forum mostly lacks criticism toward Watchman Nee if much, if not all, of Lee's teaching were derived from him.

And then I thought how similar the lack of criticism of Nee is to that of Titus Chu here as well, especially when I view them all as part of the same polycephalic entity. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this before I start formulating theories?

Anyway, carry on....

Here are a few threads you should look at:

Nigel Tomes: LSM’s ‘Authority and Submission’ Tampers with the Trinity

What is the boundary of the Local Church

Reconsideration of the Vision

Misrepresenting God: Delegated Authority (Nee)

Wright Doyle’s Biography of Nee

“Early Nee” vs. “Later Nee”

The ground on Which the Church should be built [please note there are multiple threads on this doctrine of the ground of the church]

Article: Beware of the writings of the Watchman

Article: Nee’s ecclesiology

Authority and Submission

Nee’s ‘Ministry to the House or to the Lord’

Spiritual Authority by Watchman Nee

LSM’s Sacrament - the “Ground of the Local Church” Nigel Tomes

Problems with Watchman Nee

The “Functions” of the Parts of Man

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here are a few threads you should look at:...…...

Thanks for that list ZNP. It's definitely a good place to start for anyone new to the forums if they'd like to catch up on Watchman Nee, BUT comparatively speaking the number of Lee and LSM leadership criticism far outweighs that of Nee and GLA on the forums. I think I alluded to this discrepancy once before...I can't help but come back to this.

Originally Posted by HERn

It may be that no one wants to touch Nee because he is some kind of exalted guru before Lee. But, really he was just a very smart brother that figured out how to get what he wanted from women while reigning as God's minister of the age. It's all Oriental Hocus pocus mind games that Lee codified as God's economy. As soon as the saints get tired of being abused Lee's kingdom will come crashing down.

I definitely would agree with the first part, HERn. Could it be that people are too scared to touch Titus Chu because they view him as the same type of exalted guru? I happen to think so...

The more provocative stuff I'm not too familiar with and honestly not interested in as Nee's doctrines tell me all I need to know.

The last part I just don't see happening considering the comparisons of the Local Churches to the Catholic church. Catholicism is riddled with controversy yet still stands strong. The Lord allows organizations like this to stand for a reason just as He allows the tares to grow amongst the wheat.


With that said, I apologize to Truthseeker for going off topic. I didn't want to start a new thread on that one question.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Going a bit off topic

As I was making my last comment tracing the teaching of natural affection back to Watchman Nee, I couldn't help to think why this forum mostly lacks criticism toward Watchman Nee if much, if not all, of Lee's teaching were derived from him.

And then I thought how similar the lack of criticism of Nee is to that of Titus Chu here as well, especially when I view them all as part of the same polycephalic entity. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this before I start formulating theories?

Anyway, carry on....

It may be that no one wants to touch Nee because he is some kind of exalted guru before Lee. But, really he was just a very smart brother that figured out how to reign as God's minister of the age. It's all Oriental Hocus pocus mind games that Lee codified as God's economy. As soon as the saints get tired of being abused Lee's kingdom will come crashing down.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Raptor

I have always understood this teaching of "natural affection" without causing me much trouble at all. There are plenty of negative examples in the Bible (and even in society). Maybe the issue with some is the words "n...a" themselves? Regardless, this thing is real and can cause lots of problems in God´s house.

I opposed that God is against natural affection. If you ask me lack of natural affection is a neurosis, to say the lease, maybe even schizophrenia, bipolar, or borderline personality disorder.

But then again, that's not foreign in the LC, nor to some that have left. So I guess, thank God for psychotropics ... or anything that makes us normal psychologically and emotionally healthy humans again.