Erroneous Teaching of Lee Concerning Natural Affection

[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.

[byHismercy]

This is where the semantics of the Lee way really get confusing. There is no way to reconcile this baloney doctrine with holy scripture.

God is love. He so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son. His greatest commandment to us is to love Him first. Our next word is to love our neighbors, others as ourselves. How naturally affectionate the Father must be toward us!

I feel natural affection for all you folks here, shoot, anyone who is tender enough to open up towards me garners my natural affection almost immediately. This affection is from God our Father.....because He is love!! Are we not made in the very image of the God who is Himself, love? How can we not be filled with natural affection?

To claim this doctrine against natural affection is to throw out Gods' word. To dispute it. To find natural affection lacking was His warning to us....to know we would be in the last days. How can any believer reject Gods' word for this wicked doctrine of man?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I feel natural affection for all you folks here, shoot, anyone who is tender enough to open up towards me garners my natural affection almost immediately. This affection is from God our Father.....because He is love!! Are we not made in the very image of the God who is Himself, love? How can we not be filled with natural affection?

Well said.

[awareness]

Brother Jo S Dr. Lily Hsu's book, exposing Nee's private sexual waywardness, brings Nee completely down. Turns out he loved not only natural affection, but the physical sort too.
Check out this thread :
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ily+hsu&page=4

[awareness]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I feel natural affection for all you folks here, shoot, anyone who is tender enough to open up towards me garners my natural affection almost immediately. This affection is from God our Father.....because He is love!! Are we not made in the very image of the God who is Himself, love? How can we not be filled with natural affection?

Amen! Hear! Hear! Amen!

[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.