Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
After all these years of being out of the program, I still don't see serious problems with the interpretation of God's economy, His stewardship, His dispensing, His household administration, His plan, etc. All provide nuance into the interpretation of oikonomia..
|
There aren't serious problems per se, but it wasn't presented to us as a provision of nuance into the interpretation of oikonomia. The ideas of stewardship weren't acknowledged... it was "just masticate the processed Triune God" etc etc. Jesus' parable on oikonomia didn't even exist in the God's economy of Lee. Or, where is the idea of responsibility? Gone. "Just eat God until you become God in life and nature." Come into meetings and shout at each other. Sing repetetively, especially the hymns of Lee. Pray-read, chant or declare, recite the footnotes, verses (you know, the special verses) and outlines. Then you'll become divine, or 'sonized'. This is the God's economy of Lee. Seriously flawed.
If it were merely a nuance I probably wouldn't have problems with it. Everybody has a view, and many of them add to the depth of our understanding. But Lee's view as a stand-alone, all-inclusive hermeneutic is like a finger-painting being held up as the finest Vermeer. Not even close.