What is God's Economy?

[DistantStar]

I'm unsure if I'm in the correct forum

Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?

While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.

Thanks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I'm unsure if I'm in the correct forum

Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?

While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.

Thanks.

It's a concept of church history which parallels the restoration of Israel/Judah to the good land after being conquered and carried off to foreign lands by Assyria and Babylon, recorded in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekial. Like Israel, supposedly all was lost of the truth and the proper church during the Dark Ages, and starting with Luther, God slowly "recovered" all the lost truths, with each successive generation building on the one before.

LSM and the LC's claim to hold this unique distinction. They claim that the rest of Christianity has never returned to the "proper ground" in Jerusalem to rebuild the "temple" of God. Thus they alone are the true testimony of Jesus.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They claim that the rest of Christianity has never returned to the "proper ground" in Jerusalem to rebuild the "temple" of God. Thus they alone are the true testimony of Jesus.

That explains their condescending view of other churches. But why use the word "economy"? Or are they using it as a kind of synonym for "recovery"? "Economy" seems out of place.

[aron]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

That explains their condescending view of other churches. But why use the word "economy"? Or are they using it as a kind of synonym for "recovery"? "Economy" seems out of place.

I think Ohio misread you, and answered for the "Lord's recovery". Supposedly the church got degraded, then God raised up specially anointed vessels like Martin Luther, Watchman Nee, and Witness Lee to recover the truth. Sorry, only one Specially Anointed Seer per age (generation), so don't apply. Also supposedly the "age of spiritual giants" is now over, because Witness Lee recovered all possible truth from the Bible.

What you were referring to is known as "God's economy", and it means that salvation is by getting filled with the Spirit of God and this will "Sonify" you or "Divinize" you. Make you God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.

So salvation isn't dead works but inner filling with the Holy Spirit which transforms you into the same image, from glory to glory. They also call it "dispensing".

But it seems to me, having been out of that group for some time now, that they miss the idea of obedience. Their idea is, Just get filled, and enjoy God, and you will become God bye and bye (that's colloquial English for at some point, eventually).

But it is Jesus' obedience that gives us hope. We the unrighteous see the Righteous One, and live. And then He calls us, and says, "Follow Me". Follow Him how? Dispensing? No, obeying. "Even as I obeyed the Father's commandments, so you obey My commandments."

But how can we obey, if we are the sinful, disobedient ones? Because by faith we see Jesus before us. Like Peter who looked out of the boat, and saw Jesus there, walking. "Lord if this is indeed You, bid me come". By faith we follow Jesus. By faith we see Him (this is only by the Spirit that we see Him[Jo 15:26]), and by faith we follow. He calls His sheep by name, and they hear His voice, and follow.

Anyway, that's my alternative to "dispensing" and "God's economy".

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by aron

What you were referring to is known as "God's economy", and it means that salvation is by getting filled with the Spirit of God and this will "Sonify" you or "Divinize" you. Make you God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.

It was this kind of thinking which made me want to run to the door at light-speed and never look back. Nothing scares me more than someone saying "Ye shall be as gods".

Originally Posted by aron

But it seems to me, having been out of that group for some time now, that they miss the idea of obedience. Their idea is, Just get filled, and enjoy God, and you will become God bye and bye (that's colloquial English for at some point, eventually).

I experienced the same thing. More than once they said that we shouldn't live with a view of things as "right" and "wrong". They believe that the Forbidden Tree was the tree not only of evil, but of good also. This confused me immensely. Are they saying that Good is Evil? That doesn't make sense.

Since I got saved I've tried to live a cleaner and more righteous life. I believed (and I still do) that we should always strive (with pain if necessary) to do what is Right. For a while I fell for their view of not having to do what is right. It was only after watching seminars by Ray Comfort that I realised that I was right and they were wrong.

(I know Comfort is a controversial man, but look up America's Greatest Sin and Hell' Best Kept Secret).

But thanks. I could never completely understand what they meant with the "god-man".

Originally Posted by Freedom

The meaning is the word is the same, but LCers think that this word economy that they (through the help of Lee) have supposedly stumbled across was some great secret in the Bible.

This is one of the first things I've noticed. The idea of a "secret" which other Christians know nothing of was very weird to me. I merely dismissed it as not being that important. I didn't realise that they put that much emphasis on it.

Isn't it disturbing how the LC, whether the church itself or Christians on Campus are all so alike? I understand common teachings here and there, but this is extreme. I live in South Africa and I read posts by people in the US, Philippines and Germany, and you all have curiously similar experiences.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm sorry. In my haste I read the question to be what is "recovery?" Oops.

I guess it was my mistake. I confused "Lord's Recover" with "God's Economy". But I wasn't so sure what they meant by the "recovery" as well. So thanks anyway

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by testallthings

.................

Thanks for the information.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I guess it was my mistake. I confused "Lord's Recover" with "God's Economy". But I wasn't so sure what they meant by the "recovery" as well. So thanks anyway

These were distinctly loaded words which were drummed into us by Lee. It was always The Recovery or The Lord's Recovery. Likewise it was always God's Economy or God's New Testament Economy.

Lee presented these and other concepts as the long lost recovered secrets unique to his ministry and the entire movement. I can go anywhere in the world, throw out a couple of these coded catch phrases, and be instantly recognized as an insider. On the other hand, if I say any of these in other churches, they immediately scratch their head and wonder about me.

[Awoken]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

This confused me immensely. Are they saying that Good is Evil? That doesn't make sense.

Very late to the party here but I wanted to comment on this as it's something I've been thinking about since leaving the LC. WL in his theology talks a lot about the Tree of Life vs. the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, how one represents life/dependence on God, the other represents independence/oneness with Satan. However, that's a false dichotomy and is un-Biblical. The Bible never says the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil IS evil. In fact, God reviewed His entire creation after making and said it was ALL good. Presumably this included the TotKoGaE. Nothing is ever said to be inherently wrong about that tree in and of itself, the problem is that man DISOBEYED God and ate it when God told them that they shouldn't. The disobedience was the problem, not the tree directly. For all we know the tree may represent moral maturity and the fact that eventually we ARE supposed to be able to discern righteousness (in fact I sorta suspect it does), however, in his infantile state in the Garden of Eden man might not have been ready for that so God told him not to eat of it because if he did, he would sin and thus definitely die. Seems like God knew what He was talking about...

Hebrews 5:14: But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

(So, uh, how is that tree so bad, again, in light of what the Apostle Paul says above? I'll put it another way, is sex bad (in the proper context of marriage at the proper age)? Is sex when you are 3 years old bad?)

Anyway, that's my two cents for the day!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

That explains their condescending view of other churches. But why use the word "economy"? Or are they using it as a kind of synonym for "recovery"? "Economy" seems out of place.

I'm sorry. In my haste I read the question to be what is "recovery?" Oops.

[Freedom]

The way that the LC uses the phrase God's economy highlights a lot of what is wrong with the LC. The word economy, as it is found in the RcV, is used in place of words like stewardship or administration which are found in other versions. The meaning is the word is the same, but LCers think that this word economy that they (through the help of Lee) have supposedly stumbled across was some great secret in the Bible.

Go and ask any Christian if God has an administration/stewardship and you should get a resounding ‘yes’. Ask an LC member if Christians outside the LC know about God’s economy and you will probably get ‘no’ as an answer, along with a lecture about how ‘degraded’ other Christians are.

In other words, economy represents a common and perhaps unspoken understanding about how God operates, but what the LC has done is to turn it into a buzzword. You will hear phrases like “remaining in God’s economy…” or “the central lane of God’s economy” and it leaves you wondering just what the really mean when they use it. Of course, lots of members know only how to throw around these words and phrases, but as it turns out, it is an attempt on the part of LC leaders to refocus everyone on something other than God, that being the ministry of WL.

In the LC, the construct of God's economy is what they believe everything to revolve around. They even believe it to be a basis by which to reject certain of the Psalms or even whole books of the Bible like James. As aron mentioned, God’s economy is thought to result in the eventual deification of the believer. So when you take a step back and look at what is going on, the LC has taken a relatively simple understanding of how God operatates, and told members that they must submit themselves to that understand/paradigm rather than God himself. As Christians, we know that God is a manager, that He is arranging things on our behalf, but we don’t fully know what He’s doing or how He’s doing it, so there’s really no such thing as “seeing” or “leaving” God’s economy. That’s not our decision to make.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I'm unsure if I'm in the correct forum
Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?
While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.

In the life study of John Witness Lee said that God's economy was farming.

[Jesus is the vine tree, the church is the branches, God is the farmer, grace and life supply can be seen. Fighting diseases and insects can be likened to the spiritual warfare. The reaping at the end of the season can be likened to the harvest in the book of Revelation at the end of the age, etc]

[Evangelical]

Everything is God's economy (God's plan of salvation). It's the reason everything and everyone exists.

[aron]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?

While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.

Perhaps the reason that it seemed to come out of nowhere is because it did. It didn't come from Scripture or Christian tradition. It was a 'revelation' of Lee, i.e. a construct.

Now if Jesus had said, "My food is to pray-read the Bible" in John 4:34, well, there you go - but he didn't. If Paul had written Timothy, "Remain in Ephesus and charge certain ones not to teach myths, but things that result in God's economy, which is to get the Processed and Consummated Triune God dispensed into you to make you God in life and nature", well okay. But he didn't.

Instead it was a teaching constructed with the barest of ill-fitting parts, and with the necessary ignoring of others, like "food" actually being to obey God's word. To Jesus, God's word wasn't condemnation but the source of life, and now our faith in Jesus' obedience is our source of life.

"Even as I live because of the Father, so you shall live because of me". And how do we follow, and live? By doing as Jesus did, not bruiting noises. By obeying his commands, just as he obeyed the Father. Just as he lay down his life for his sheep, so in laying down our things, we'd be a sweet-smelling savour of Christ. Note that Paul in 2 Cor gives them an example, of Macedonia:

"And now, brothers and sisters, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. In the midst of a very severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the Lord’s people. And they exceeded our expectations: They gave themselves first of all to the Lord, and then by the will of God also to us. So we urged Titus, just as he'd earlier made a beginning, to bring also to completion this act of grace on your part. But since you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in the love we have kindled in you—see that you also excel in this grace of giving."

To Paul, this is the "sweet savour" he wrote of in 2:15. This is God's economy, what Paul was teaching in all the churches. This is the overflow of love toward those who can't repay in this age. Remember - they weren't subsidizing the apostle's Golf Club membership, or his-and-hers Lexus' (cough, cough, Hank, cough, cough...) but the poor. It's not man's economy but God's economy.

Now, the objection may be, "But how do you know that 'When you have a feast, invite those who can't pay you' is God's economy? Maybe it's something different from Lee's idea, or yours." Perhaps. But look at the fruit of the idea. In Lee's world, we didn't actually have to DO what the Bible said, that being "dead works" but instead we just "masticated" them and became God. Dead letters became living spirit if we shouted them over and over again. We didn't care for right and wrong, until the stench of the wrong became too great and we had to create yet another web site quoting CWWL chapter and verse, how we had nothing to do with it. That's where pray-reading got you.

So where does 'give to others' get you? All I know is that Jesus said that the servants would be blessed if the Master returned and found them so doing - not delivering lectures and trainings and selling pamphlets, but 'dispensing' and 'ministering' the same way that they were in Acts 6:1 and 12:25. Those men saw Jesus, heard his teachings. Don't you think that their pattern should be closely followed? I do. We have Jesus example, and we have the apostles' interpretation and execution of his commands, and not a word of it on pray-reading. (Yes, 'pray unceasingly' but that also can mean 'pray when you give aid to the poor'.)

[aron]

The title should more correctly be ''The Overlooked Writings of Paul" or "The Ignored Writings of Paul" but I like dramatic turns of phrase, nyuk-nyuk.

I'll argue that sections of Paul, chapters even, get a short shrift in the Lord's Recovery because they show a view of "God's economy" very different from that of WL. I start with the climax of Paul's Chapter 2 of Galatians: the meeting in Jerusalem, where the right hand of fellowship was proffered - Paul to the gentiles, Peter to the Jews. "Only, they urged that I remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do." How much ink did that get in WL's output? I don't remember any commentary.

Then Paul declares that he returned to Jerusalem after his mission to the gentiles with "alms for my nation" (Acts 24:17) and suddenly there's a conceptual book-end for large swaths of Paul's epistles, most of it passed over by WL. Typical is Romans 15:25-27 "Now, however, I'm on my way to Jerusalem to serve the saints there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual blessings, they are obligated to minister to them with material blessings."

When one pokes around in Paul's writings, one finds it's not only a common but a ubiquitous theme. 1 Cor 16:1-3 "Now about the collection for the saints, you're to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed. Then, on my arrival, I'll send letters with those you recommend to carry your gift to Jerusalem."

2 Corinthians 8 and 9 have the probably the most well-developed conceptual working-out by Paul of this mission. 2 Cor 8:1-4 says "Now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the churches of Macedonia. In the terrible ordeal they suffered, their abundant joy and deep poverty overflowed into rich generosity. For I testify that they gave according to their ability and even beyond it. Of their own accord, they earnestly pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints."

And it extends into chapter 9: "Now about the service to the saints, there's no need for me to write to you. For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting to the Macedonians that since last year you in Achaia were prepared to give. And your zeal has stirred most of them to do likewise..."(vv 1,2) And it's held together with a lengthy explanation in chapter 8 of those who have means being kind to those without, summarized with the adage, "He who gathered much had no excess, and he who gathered little had no lack." (v.15)

Now in this focus, much of Acts, likewise downplayed, jumps back to the fore. The chapters in the beginning where disciples shared, where widows got the 'daily dispensing' (6:1) etc. Now, Jesus' exhortation in the gospels to "feed my sheep" gets new light (Unless John, Peter, Luke, Paul didn't know to take this 'spiritually', until it got 'recovered' by WL [ha-ha])

Suddenly we remember the unbelieving gentile Cornelius being told by the angel that "your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial offering before God". And likewise Paul's word to the gentiles in Romans 15:27 makes sense. Yes, there's no male or female, no slave nor free, no Greek nor Jew, but Christ is all in all... yet our voluntarily offered aid and submission to one another (female subject to male, slave to free, gentile assemblies offering to the poor of Jerusalem) is the out-worked love that Jesus taught us. It's the power of the resurrection, in our faith, seen in our acts. Remember, it's the "Acts" of the apostles that were seen, not just words that were heard.

As the travelling Samaritan gave of his excess so that the wounded man by the roadside had no lack, so also it was with the churches of the gentiles remembering the poor in Jerusalem. Consider Agabus' prophecy of the famine, and the aid which followed (Acts 11:28-30) - there was no social services back then, but there was continual expression of real love among the churches and Paul regarded his mission as central to that. Else, why highlight his collection for the Jerusalem poor so prominently in Galatians 2?

Perhaps this is what Paul was teaching in every church: not to heed myths and genealogies but to have a heart for helping one another. All those sections in his writings on the generosity of the churches point to that scene in Galatians of the meeting of the apostles, their encouragement and his eager assent... it's not mysterious at all, unless one deliberately ignores it... but if so, then one has these remainders, these 'odd' sections of scripture that don't fit, to be passed over with little comment or even dismissed.

But if you see Paul's word in 2 Cor 8:15 as his summation of "God's economy, which is in faith", then it comes together nicely. Then, we don't need to pan the epistle of James, for example - quite the contrary - James was rather in "the central lane of the divine economy". The whole of the NT coheres, without "fallen", "low", and "natural" bits to be excised.

[aron]

As I remember, WL's version said that God got processed: incarnation, inclusion, intensification. Then humanity gets processed: redeemed, reconciled, regenerated, conformed, transformed, transfigured (into God but not the God-head).

But if we examine this process as actually lived out, we see its untenability in Lord's Recovery practice. Consider transformation: how can the "apostle of the age" with such a "rich ministry" fail at even the basics of church behaviour that Paul outlined in Titus 1:6? WL's sons Timothy and Philip showed little if any indication of spiritual interest, and ran roughshod over the churches under WL's watch. Where's evidence of transformation in these cases? The church leaders that abetted this and who now run LSM were there at every meeting, listening to every message, reciting outlines and footnotes, singing every song, pray-reading and calling on the name of the Lord at every turn, yet showed little evidence of the Christian expression that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and John gave in the NT. They're respecters of persons, they dissemble, they overlook evil, they're man-pleasers.

Look at Jane Anderson's testimony. Where's evidence of Christian faith in how she got handled by those who now run LSM? I don't see it.

How much money did WL siphon off for the Daystar Corporation, run by son Timothy, it's President? We know the church in Boston handed over $100K; we don't know the other cities, but I daresay it perhaps totaled in the millions, when a million could buy something. How much went into the inner circle of the WL Guanxi Network, and how much (or little) made it back out? "That's my personal business" said WL, when asked about it by Sal Benoit. Where's evidence of transformation in WL's creation and handling of Daystar?

Or son Philip, who repeatedly preyed upon women in the offices of the Lord's Recovery HQ? Where's evidence of transformation - all the "Oh Looord Jeeesus' " don't mean anything, do they? All the PSRP of HMWR.. where's the issue? How can you have transfiguration without transformation?

We heard the view that nobody could obey God, which ignores Jesus(!), and instead we just "masticated the Processed and Consummated Triune God" and inwardly we'd be metabolically transformed and conformed and then outwardly transfigured. It was a kind of grace-on-steroids, where our magical incantations did everything, and we'd just "enjoy the riches". Yet if Christian essentials were overlooked, then what are the riches?

Contrast to the NT, where Hebrews 5:8,9 dovetails neatly with John's gospel: "Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him". In John's gospel, Jesus said that as he obeyed the Father, we should obey him, as he lived because of the Father's word, so we'd live by his word, as the Father sent him, so he sent us. Nothing about pray-reading HWMR outlines and footnotes. To me, it's a completely different gospel. WL manufactured a reading of Paul that overturned or ignored parts of the NT, but in the last post (#311), I noted that this reading even depended on ignoring much of Paul's (and Luke's) own writings!

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

"Exercise your spirit, brother!" is a push to shout and jump and wave. But where does this shouting and waving come from? The Bible says, "Exercise yourself to Godliness" but does that mean jump up and down and shout repetitively? I think such interpretation is error.

"Don't think - drink!" Remember that one? Unthinking, reflexive action was how the error got disseminated widely.

"Exercise yourself unto Godliness" really means what James meant - Godliness (true religion) is to visit widows and orphans and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. God so loved us that he sent His only begotten Son to save us. This son was holy, as the Father is holy.

The Son then said that we his disciples are to obey his commands, just as he obeyed the Father's commands. So we're likewise sent as emissaries to the unlovely, the unloved, the unlovable (in our eyes). That's what James meant by "visit widows and orphans". To love them, in this context, is to show some actual blessing. Healing, comfort, encouragement, food, clothes, shelter, something. Pay attention to them, listen to them.

And the second part is to keep unspotted from the world, like Jesus did. That is "exercise yourself unto Godliness". Not jump up and down and shout. And notice where the jumping and shouting got us: 1) We were told to ignore obvious sin in church leadership; 2) We were told to despise the poor, the widows and orphans. "Don't waste your time" was the word at FTTA. Get good building material instead.

I'm bringing this forward here, as it points to how the creation of an erroneous thought - "Exercise your spirit in God's economy" became widespread. The thought was that we no longer cared for right and wrong, because nobody's without sin [ignoring Jesus!], and instead we should simply "enjoy NT grace on the proper ground" by shouting, calling, yelling, crying, screaming, declaring, fist-pumping, pray-reading.

The Bible does say, "Cry out and shout, O inhabitants of Zion". Opening our mouths is part of salvation. But it's nowhere held as the "God's economy" of Paul's epistles.

But the pray-reading, calling, shouting, crying, screaming, yelling, groaning all were used to suppress the critical thought which might at some point set off alarms. Why is the Apostle of the Age violating basic Christian principles, set down in the epistle to Titus for every local church elder? "Don't think, brother!! Just Drink!! Exercise your spirit!!" See how it works? The doctrine has its own dissemination kernel. Don't think, just yell loudly, repeatedly, and be "one" with leadership. (As Ray Graver told Bill Mallon, "Here, we do what we're told". That's a non-mystical way to put it.)

And the fact that the LSM-affiliated cryers, screamers, yellers, shouters in Mainland China went from a stated membership of several tens of millions in the mid-90s (per WL, from the podium) to a stated membership of zero ten years later (per Chris Wilde, to the press) shows where all the noisemaking took them. If LSM, unbalanced as it is, couldn't control the Shouters, how bad must it have gotten in the People's Republic?

Getting people excited by yelling is the doctrine, and it very neatly contains the means of aiding dissemination of the doctrine itself (what WL called "propagation"). But ultimately we don't see transformation as a result of widespread and longstanding adherence to these teachings. This corroborates what we see from the NT text, that it isn't God's economy.

[aron]

A commonly used phrase in the LC was derived from or at least connected to Song of Solomon 1:8. "If thou know not thyself, thou fair one among women, go thou forth by the footsteps of the flocks, and feed thy kids by the shepherd's tents" (Brenton Septuagint Translation). This was the allied phrase "closely following the apostles" which WL & Co were fond of (see Phil 3:17; 2 Tim 3:10, 1 Tim 4:6; cf Acts 2:42).

Here is a song of the same title, sung in the LC

https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/ns/680

If Peter, James, and John sent Paul and Barnabas out with "only remember the poor", to which he eagerly consented by his own admission (Gal 2:10), don't you think similar eagerness would also be evidenced by Nee and/or Lee? Instead, the subject of caring for the poor was carefully avoided. When the topic was once broached by a naiive trainee at the FTT in Anaheim, the answer (from PH) was summarily dismissive: "Don't waste your time." Go for good building material instead; it was all quite explicit, blunt, and categorical. There was no equivocating with PH. He got his position by letting everyone know WL's position.

How can we follow the footsteps of the flock, or closely follow the apostles' teaching, if we so strenuously avoid the implications of Gal 2:10? As I wrote earlier, that also means we need to downplay chapters of Paul, and to overlook Luke's account of Paul returning to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" (Acts 24:17), and likewise to minimise Jesus' "sell what you have, give alms to the poor, and you'll be rich in heaven" (Luke 12:33). And so on... it stretches back to the OT, where being kind to the destitute is repeatedly held as a way to connect to the Most High, who gives liberally to all. So simple even a gentile can follow it - Acts 10:1-4! As I wrote earlier, Paul develops this theme in 2 Cor 8.

No, instead we were to selfishly masticate God by pray-reading Bible verses to make ourselves God. Don't waste your time (or money!) with the poor. So I ask, which of these two distinct and separate ideas, seems more like "God's economy" to you? Which more closely adheres to the consistent and plain pattern of scriptural behaviours and teachings?

I daresay that Watchman Nee saw in his example (JN Darby) that with proper 'revelation' he didn't have to follow anybody! He could just get a 'vision of the age' and everyone would instead have to follow him... how attractive, no? He could even reverse himself, and with one 'revelation' declare churches were all local and independent, removing the taint of the hated West, and then with a later 'revelation' could declare that all churches tie to a geographical center, a la his "Jerusalem Principle", which now would be Shanghai, not London or Rome. All of it self-serving, contradictory, and only tenuously biblical, but who cares? As long as you closely follow Nee you're good!

From this swirling milieu did Witness Lee's version of God's economy emerge. It was a personal creation, then put to captive assemblies (because we're all one, right?). Nobody questioned because it came from WL and we didn't question God's oracle. But if one questioned it soon fell apart, as did many of his teachings. But look at the big, thick books he could sell in the meantime.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I'm unsure if I'm in the correct forum

Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?

While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.

Thanks.

I'm not sure if others have touched on this, I haven't read every comment on this thread, but the economy of God as told by Lee is God's household arrangement of dispensing his riches into the members of the body of Christ. Meaning God is sovereign over the lives of the local church members to the extent that all the things that happen to them are in view of God wanting to dispense Christ as the spirit into the members so that Christ can be their content and expression. This is a mantra that is constantly repeated over and over again in the LC. As far as I know it is 100% biblical and I see no fault in the concept itself. But I do have an issue if it's used to gloss over everything else about our lives. If it's used as a scapegoat for things ("just turn to your spirit brother" in any given scenario), and i do have an issue if it brainwashes people into being automatons and live robotic lives. Which I have experienced myself from time to time while meeting with the LC

Another way to look at God's economy, as told by Lee, is that God became a man in order to make man God in life and nature but not in the godhead. To accomplish this he was incarnated, lived a human life, was crucified, died and resurrected, ascended and descended as the spirit to get into man. All of this is covered by Lee extensively and repeated over and over again in the LC. Frankly I don't see any error in it according to the word of God, particularly the book of John with regards to abiding in the Lord, and Paul's epistles with regards to taking Christ as his inner secret of sufficiency. All of it lines up and is synergistic and compliments the word of God from not just Paul and the other apostles/disciples, but from Jesus himself

The economy of God is NOT the same thing as the recovery of the church ground, the local meetings, or calling on the Lord. Those things are merely practical parts that are related to the economy of God insofar as the recovery of the local church was necessary for God to get his unique meeting place (Deuteronomy 12:11), for the believers to have a practical way to meet (at the homes as seen and practiced in the book of Acts), and have a practical way for God to infill them with the spirit by calling on the Lord. I find all of this to be doctrinally sound and one of the best things about the recovery in general. As far as theory goes at least, it is a fantastic biblical discovery and I see no fault in implementing it's practice

Now maybe others saw these things and practiced them before Nee and Lee. But we can say that Nee and Lee consolidated these truths and practices and implemented them in a practical way for a large group of people. Frankly if I'm being objective I see that as God's move to recover a corporate people similar to him recovering the children of Israel out of Egypt. Otherwise you just have scattered believers going their own way and doing whatever they think their personal interpretation of the Bible means- Proverbs 29:18 When there is no vison the people cast off restraint

But the economy of God does not directly touch on any kind of unique oracle or all powerful human leadership. We might see what looks like examples of these concepts in the word, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can and should be applied to people like Nee/Lee, the elders, the speaking bros, the blended bros etc. And that doesn't mean that what Lee said is a 1:1 comparison with what actually happened in the word. Yes God can and did raise up one person to lead at certain times. But if we read the Bible carefully we can see that that's not always the case. Many times God raised up two or three people to take the lead at any given time. And also we see that most often when God raises someone or a couple of people up it's for a specific purpose at a specific time. To say that because someone was used by God at one time that somehow this makes them "the oracle or unique leader of an entire generation for as long as they live" is as dangerous as it is unbliical

That's where there can become lots of problems, and much of what I'm reading and seeing in these threads is troubles and strife that stem from power and control abuse from leadership. Of which I myself have experienced. So those are NOT a part of the economy of God. As far as leadership is concerned, I do see an impetus for it in the word and objectively it's necessary, but the scope and sphere of how far that power and control reaches and what it can and can't do is debatable. Or we could ask the question- should there be ANY power and control with the leadership? A lot of the problems i see amongst myself and others is misuse of the leadership in the LC. That is not a part of the definition and concept of God's economy directly. But the leadership, speaking bros, apostles, and eldership is a part of the practical church life. So probably the issues are not with the doctrine of God's economy, but rather the practical affairs of the church. So I find it very difficult to tear down and attack the doctrinal aspects of the LC. But it's rather easy to point out glaring errors that surround misuse of power, exclusive church culture, cover ups, and things relating to abuse and mind control (at least insofar as all of these testimonies are concerned)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

That's where there can become lots of problems, and much of what I'm reading and seeing in these threads is troubles and strife that stem from power and control abuse from leadership. Of which I myself have experienced. So those are NOT a part of the economy of God. As far as leadership is concerned, I do see an impetus for it in the word and objectively it's necessary, but the scope and sphere of how far that power and control reaches and what it can and can't do is debatable. Or we could ask the question- should there be ANY power and control with the leadership? A lot of the problems i see amongst myself and others is misuse of the leadership in the LC. That is not a part of the definition and concept of God's economy directly. But the leadership, speaking bros, apostles, and eldership is a part of the practical church life. So probably the issues are not with the doctrine of God's economy, but rather the practical affairs of the church. So I find it very difficult to tear down and attack the doctrinal aspects of the LC. But it's rather easy to point out glaring errors that surround misuse of power, exclusive church culture, cover ups, and things relating to abuse and mind control (at least insofar as all of these testimonies are concerned)

Jay, concerning the abuse of power, I have found issues with both doctrine and practice, as they go hand in hand. For example, much power was secured by the exclusive appointment of elders by “apostles.” Yes, that was described in scripture, but never prescribed as Lee taught. This doctrine and practice guarantees both the power of these appointing apostles and the loyalty of those elders. These, however, were used to supplant both the truth of scripture and the needs of the saints.

The N.T. never mentions the “church of the apostles” nor the “church of the ministry,” but that is what we had become. An independent and healthy eldership would have prevented this. Thus we were not “the church of Christ” or the “church of the saints” which are both spelled out in the Word. Hence God’s economy, God’s “house rule,” or God’s household administration, were seriously violated. Actually, Nee’s “Normal Christian Church Life” spells this out fairly clearly.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, This doctrine and practice guarantees both the power of these appointing apostles and the loyalty of those elders. These, however, were used to supplant both the truth of scripture and the needs of the saints.

Are you referring to them taking money from the saints to fund Lee's business ventures?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

Are you referring to them taking money from the saints to fund Lee's business ventures?

I’m referring to one of the mechanisms used by them which ensure total control over member churches.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay,
The N.T. never mentions the “church of the apostles” nor the “church of the ministry,” but that is what we had become. An independent and healthy eldership would have prevented this. Thus we were not “the church of Christ” or the “church of the saints” which are both spelled out in the Word. Hence God’s economy, God’s “house rule,” or God’s household administration, were seriously violated. Actually, Nee’s “Normal Christian Church Life” spells this out fairly clearly.

I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't invalidate Lee's doctrine on the economy of God. Actually it just shows that Lee himself misused his position, and the elders and coworkers around him were complicit in his errors. I have read nothing that eludes to Lee believing that the apostles, elders, coworkers etc. have any type of authority over the personal lives of the saints. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I have never read it. And I've read a great deal of LSM material from Nee and Lee in my lifetime. The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know. Also being in the church for as long as I have, we rarely if ever talk about authority; spiritual or otherwise. It just never comes up

Now if Lee and co. encroached into that territory, which it sounds like they absolutely did (and I myself have experienced this with other leaders in the church), then they are just flat out wrong. And it sounds like this is Lee's lifetime major fault, and those who covered him at the expense of the body of Christ are complicit in his errors. And those who stood up against it were right to do so. It's possible he should have stepped down from any type of leadership position he held, and just relegated his sphere of function to speaking. But I suppose ultimately that's up to God. When king David sinned God didn't remove his kingdom from him, but he punished him in other ways and ultimately David's kingdom was split in half between his son's fighting. So there were major major consequences. Also with his seed Solomon, who eventually became degraded to the inth degree. But then why would I even be talking about Lee as if he was the king or ruler of the recovery? That's a funny thing right? It just means that the recovery revers Lee as if he was a king in a way. Which maybe is human nature, but it's something that is kind of hidden but obvious too. Strange thing. At any rate, how much Lee's failures damaged the church is what it is. I think at this point in time it's in the past mostly. Granted many who were caught up in the problems had their church life ruined and there should be accountability for that before God. Jesus said clearly that the stumbling blocks would be judged harshly

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jay

The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know

Actually this is pretty interesting. I read a bit of authority and submission when I was younger but didn't get very far into it. I just now went and read a little bit of chapter three and Nee is talking about Moses being a chosen deputy authority by God. He also mentions Noah and the sin of Ham by uncovering his father

The problems I have with these two examples is:

1. Noah's sin was a personal sin that didn't effect other people. He was simply drunken and naked, and in that sense sure Ham was wrong for exposing his father's personal sins. That is true, but with regards to the sins that Lee is accused of it doesn't fit the same category. If Lee was covering his son and not removing his son from office while his son was breaking the law and harming women then Lee was beyond wrong. That type of thing simply can't exist in the church and be covered like it was. Totally unacceptable and that type of thing SHOULD be exposed so that we don't foster that type of environment. And it has happened again since Lee's son did it. Other brothers have done it and got away with it. So clearly Lee's son should have been made an example of. This shows how damaging the misuse of scripture can be

With regards to Moses, the whole thing just sounds like a soap opera. Moses's sister and brother were all mad because he married an Ethiopian woman or whatever, is just a silly thing. And then God coming around and giving them leprosy or whatever is kind of unnecessary for such silly drama. I'll have to go back and read more of that but it just sounds like a soap opera. There's many examples in the Old Testament of God being petty and cruel. The example of the bears coming out and devouring the children who were mocking Elisha is a shining example of misuse of power and God being petty. But anyway

2. I can't go along with someone holding a position over a large group of people while harming a large number of them at the same time. Maybe I'm just "natural" or maybe I'm a rebel, but it seems to me that one should lose their position of leadership if they make grave errors and sins. Saul lost his position due to his sins. So why didn't David? It's God playing favorites I suppose. So this type of wonky scripture could absolutely be exploited by leaders who want to cover up their misdeeds or leaders who are corrupted by their own position

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jay

Actually this is pretty interesting. I read a bit of authority and submission when I was younger but didn't get very far into it. I just now went and read a little bit of chapter three and Nee is talking about Moses being a chosen deputy authority by God. He also mentions Noah and the sin of Ham by uncovering his father

The problems I have with these two examples is:

1. Noah's sin was a personal sin that didn't effect other people. He was simply drunken and naked, and in that sense sure Ham was wrong for exposing his father's personal sins. That is true, but with regards to the sins that Lee is accused of it doesn't fit the same category. If Lee was covering his son and not removing his son from office while his son was breaking the law and harming women then Lee was beyond wrong. That type of thing simply can't exist in the church and be covered like it was. Totally unacceptable and that type of thing SHOULD be exposed so that we don't foster that type of environment. And it has happened again since Lee's son did it. Other brothers have done it and got away with it. So clearly Lee's son should have been made an example of. This shows how damaging the misuse of scripture can be

With regards to Moses, the whole thing just sounds like a soap opera. Moses's sister and brother were all mad because he married an Ethiopian woman or whatever, is just a silly thing. And then God coming around and giving them leprosy or whatever is kind of unnecessary for such silly drama. I'll have to go back and read more of that but it just sounds like a soap opera. There's many examples in the Old Testament of God being petty and cruel. The example of the bears coming out and devouring the children who were mocking Elisha is a shining example of misuse of power and God being petty. But anyway

2. I can't go along with someone holding a position over a large group of people while harming a large number of them at the same time. Maybe I'm just "natural" or maybe I'm a rebel, but it seems to me that one should lose their position of leadership if they make grave errors and sins. Saul lost his position due to his sins. So why didn't David? It's God playing favorites I suppose. So this type of wonky scripture could absolutely be exploited by leaders who want to cover up their misdeeds or leaders who are corrupted by their own position

I don't say any of this to say that I believe Lee was a false prophet or a cult leader etc. I don't believe he was. I do believe he was used by God to set up the local churches and to speak a lot of great things with regards to the deeper meanings in the Bible. However it sounds like his personal life had a lot of major drama in it and that carried over into the church when he appointed his unworthy sons with high positions, of which they misused and abused. This was no doubt nepotism on Lee's part, and it sounds like this was his major flaw- his love for his sons. So despite the great things Lee did he also did a lot of damage and probably should have lost his position. But then we get into another argument of what exactly should the positions in the church be, and how should they be maintained and how should they function. This is something that is not talked a lot about in the recovery. But I think it's safe to say that if you have a position it should not be permanent and if you behave badly you could and probably should lose your position. Are positions hierarchy? Such a grey area right. I have also heard of elders being asked to step down. So why was Lee never asked to step down. Probably because they revered him to almost a deity status. They felt he was the "speaker of the age" just like Paul and this gave him a 'get out of jail free' card for any misdeeds or errors. Which he clearly made huge ones and they were just covered up because of this prevailing thought that the lower ranking members shouldn't expose the wrongs of the higher ranking members. Well this led to many lives being ruined and many thousands of people leaving the recovery

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't invalidate Lee's doctrine on the economy of God. Actually it just shows that Lee himself misused his position, and the elders and coworkers around him were complicit in his errors. I have read nothing that eludes to Lee believing that the apostles, elders, coworkers etc. have any type of authority over the personal lives of the saints. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I have never read it. And I've read a great deal of LSM material from Nee and Lee in my lifetime. The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know. Also being in the church for as long as I have, we rarely if ever talk about authority; spiritual or otherwise. It just never comes up

Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.

I've heard the story of his excommunication, but I haven't heard of the "handing over" part. Do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on this?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.

Also do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on WHY he was excommunicated in the first place. The story that I heard was that they falsely accused him of having inappropriate contact with a sister. From the story that I heard it was M.E. Barber whom he was visiting personally at her home and she was simply just his spiritual mentor, which was the reason for the personal visits

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

Frankly I don't see any error in it according to the word of God, particularly the book of John with regards to abiding in the Lord, and Paul's epistles with regards to taking Christ as his inner secret of sufficiency. All of it lines up and is synergistic and compliments the word of God from not just Paul and the other apostles/disciples, but from Jesus himself.

A lot of things can line up to the Bible, putting ideas onto the text rather than drawing them from the text is something that the Recovery is very good at. They cherry pick verses that support a bullet point on an outline. Witness Lee selected verses that supported his ideas. Is the Bible telling you that man is becoming god in life&nature but not in the godhead, or is that an idea you can cast over the book & find support for?

Originally Posted by Jay

Frankly if I'm being objective I see that as God's move to recover a corporate people similar to him recovering the children of Israel out of Egypt. Otherwise you just have scattered believers going their own way and doing whatever they think their personal interpretation of the Bible means-

There is irony here is that your proposed consequence is in itself the result of a personal interpretation of the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

A lot of things can line up to the Bible, putting ideas onto the text rather than drawing them from the text is something that the Recovery is very good at. They cherry pick verses that support a bullet point on an outline. Witness Lee selected verses that supported his ideas. Is the Bible telling you that man is becoming god in life&nature but not in the godhead, or is that an idea you can cast over the book & find support for?

Zezima, great points, I love this tried-and-true maxim about knowing the Bible:

A text without context is a pretext for a proof text.

How I wish we all knew this years ago!

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Zezima

Is the Bible telling you that man is becoming god in life&nature but not in the godhead, or is that an idea you can cast over the book & find support for?

2 Corinthians 3:18. Romans 12:2. 1 Corinthians 2:16. Colossians 3:10. 1 Corinthians 15:49. Etc.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jay

...the economy of God as told by Lee is God's household arrangement of dispensing his riches into the members of the body of Christ. Meaning God is sovereign over the lives of the local church members to the extent that all the things that happen to them are in view of God wanting to dispense Christ as the spirit into the members so that Christ can be their content and expression. This is a mantra that is constantly repeated over and over again in the LC. As far as I know it is 100% biblical and I see no fault in the concept itself.

I welcome Jay and other new posters on this forum, I hope that you have as much fun as I have. I really like having a forum where I can express my views, and often I hear the view of others as well, very encouraging to consider what others see and think.

I mostly agree with the tenor of Jay’s writing, but like Zezima find the interpretation of “God’s economy” by Lee to be far short of the mark. I see three related issues.

First, like Zezima said, there is no verse in the Bible, either OT or NT, where it says, “Pray-reading the scripture is God’s economy” or “Pray-reading the scripture is food to us.” It says the Word is food to us, but it doesn’t say pray-reading. Jesus says, “To obey God’s word is food to us”, not to pray-read, in John 4:34.

Later, in John, he also says, “As I obey my Father’s commands and live, so also you shall obey my commands and live.” (15:10). Again, not pray-reading scripture, but obedience. Not repetitious noise-making but actions of compliance with the divine will as expressed in scripture.

My second issue with Lee’s interpretation of God’s economy is that it is centered on the believer, not on Jesus Christ. I (the believer) can exercise my human spirit!! That was the focus, they sold me a fantasy version of myself and I believed it. And notice, it doesn’t even say, “exercise your spirit” but “exercise yourself unto godliness” – again, behavior, not noisemaking.
So the believer gets enthralled with the idea of “making it”, when it is Jesus who made it. The believer gets focused on himself or herself, instead of loving the neighbor. We were told at FTTA “don’t waste your time” on the poor, the widows, the orphans. Get the “good building material.” Completely selfish in orientation.

My third issue is that it doesn’t work. I tell one story as an example. A few years ago, I sat in on a meeting with Ron Kangas. He told us a story about a woman in the church, who 38 years ago was flighty, nervous and vain. Now, he says, 38 years have gone by, and no transformation! However, he, Ron, was in a meeting with WL who told them to pray that God would make his home in their hearts. So Ron has been praying the special prayer every day and he’s assured that he’s transformed, not like this sister.

I heard this and thought, so “Just call O Lord/he’ll change your life” doesn’t work! She didn’t pray the special prayer. Every day for 38 year she called, “O Lord” but she missed the special meeting with the special overcomer prayer and didn’t get the inward metabolic transformation that we were all promised.

Of course it’s good to call on the Lord. Whoever calls on the Lord shall be saved. But the Bible doesn’t say, “Just call O Lord.” You also have to obey. But WL’s version of God’s economy reduced it to “just call”. That is deceptive.
I’ve already gone into some detail elsewhere what I think Paul meant by “God’s economy”. It was a riff on Jesus’ “Give to those who can’t repay you in this age, and your reward will be great in heaven.” See 2 whole chapters on this theme, in 2 Cor 8 and 9. Where did Paul spend 2 chapters on pray-reading? Or even 2 verses?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

I welcome Jay and other new posters on this forum, I hope that you have as much fun as I have. I really like having a forum where I can express my views, and often I hear the view of others as well, very encouraging to consider what others see and think.

I mostly agree with the tenor of Jay’s writing, but like Zezima find the interpretation of “God’s economy” by Lee to be far short of the mark. I see three related issues.

First, like Zezima said, there is no verse in the Bible, either OT or NT, where it says, “Pray-reading the scripture is God’s economy” or “Pray-reading the scripture is food to us.” It says the Word is food to us, but it doesn’t say pray-reading. Jesus says, “To obey God’s word is food to us”, not to pray-read, in John 4:34.

Later, in John, he also says, “As I obey my Father’s commands and live, so also you shall obey my commands and live.” (15:10). Again, not pray-reading scripture, but obedience. Not repetitious noise-making but actions of compliance with the divine will as expressed in scripture.

My second issue with Lee’s interpretation of God’s economy is that it is centered on the believer, not on Jesus Christ. I (the believer) can exercise my human spirit!! That was the focus, they sold me a fantasy version of myself and I believed it. And notice, it doesn’t even say, “exercise your spirit” but “exercise yourself unto godliness” – again, behavior, not noisemaking.
So the believer gets enthralled with the idea of “making it”, when it is Jesus who made it. The believer gets focused on himself or herself, instead of loving the neighbor. We were told at FTTA “don’t waste your time” on the poor, the widows, the orphans. Get the “good building material.” Completely selfish in orientation.

My third issue is that it doesn’t work. I tell one story as an example. A few years ago, I sat in on a meeting with Ron Kangas. He told us a story about a woman in the church, who 38 years ago was flighty, nervous and vain. Now, he says, 38 years have gone by, and no transformation! However, he, Ron, was in a meeting with WL who told them to pray that God would make his home in their hearts. So Ron has been praying the special prayer every day and he’s assured that he’s transformed, not like this sister.

I heard this and thought, so “Just call O Lord/he’ll change your life” doesn’t work! She didn’t pray the special prayer. Every day for 38 year she called, “O Lord” but she missed the special meeting with the special overcomer prayer and didn’t get the inward metabolic transformation that we were all promised.

Of course it’s good to call on the Lord. Whoever calls on the Lord shall be saved. But the Bible doesn’t say, “Just call O Lord.” You also have to obey. But WL’s version of God’s economy reduced it to “just call”. That is deceptive.
I’ve already gone into some detail elsewhere what I think Paul meant by “God’s economy”. It was a riff on Jesus’ “Give to those who can’t repay you in this age, and your reward will be great in heaven.” See 2 whole chapters on this theme, in 2 Cor 8 and 9. Where did Paul spend 2 chapters on pray-reading? Or even 2 verses?

As far as I can tell the economy of God is a fully Biblical. And yes transformation is implied in the economy of God if the believer taps into the spirit. This is like describing the components of an engine to determine how it works. If a believer doesn't turn to their spirit and let the spirit of God saturate their inward being then how could they be transformed? The "engine" won't work. With that said, even if a believer is turning to their spirit for many years, it does not annul their dormant flesh which will always be with us until our body dies. This is also biblical. If "the engine" of the spirit isn't turned on then the "car of holiness" won't go forward

Here is a quote from a website on the economy of God-

The Greek word for economy is oikonomia (Ephesians 1:10; 3:9), which means a household government or a household administration. God's economy is His plan to dispense Himself into man so that He can gain a household to express Himself. This household is the church, the Body of Christ (1 Timothy 3:15)

https://amanatrust.org.uk/post/what-...mothy%203%3A15).

Some people might make it hard to understand, some might leave out key elements. But the basic gist is that if we turn to our spirit and live our lives in the spirit we will receive God's dispensing and we will live by him (John 6:57), this will bring transformation (2 Corinthians 3:18). Does it mean that we will be infallible? No. But insofar as we have partaken of and assimilated God we should be transformed to that degree. I see no fault with this concept and it is very Biblical. I believe it's the core message of the Bible and aligns perfectly with God's original design in Genesis with man and the two trees. The concepts of eating, partaking of, and assimilating God himself to be transformed into his own image is a concept that runs throughout the entire word of God

If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe it's the core message of the Bible and aligns perfectly with God's original design in Genesis with man and the two trees. The concepts of eating, partaking of, and assimilating God himself to be transformed into his own image is a concept that runs throughout the entire word of God

The concept of the two trees is a perfect example of placing an idea onto the text. There is no command given by God in the garden of Eden, to eat of the Tree of Life

Genesis 2:16-17 “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

If you approach this text as is, it’s clear that man is allowed to eat of EVERY tree in the garden apart from the TOKOGE. If you approach this text with the concept you’re referring to, then you’re inferring onto the text that since man is commanded to not eat of the TOKOGE, then man must have been commanded to eat of the TOL.

If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it.

This is a common response many have had when the beliefs they hold so dearly begin to wobble or collapse. I’d urge anyone with this response to consider a different approach. Read the Bible for yourself, get a reader version or non-study Bible, and just read it. No footnotes or commentary, no subject headers or outlines. Make an effort to set aside your beliefs, start from 0 as best you can and let the Bible tell you what it’s about.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Jay

If we throw out the work of Nee and Lee then certainly we have to throw out the books that David, Solomon, and Paul wrote. Do we not?

Another double-take......complements of Jay!
For decades the followers of Nee and Lee have vehemently denied that they consider or treat the writings of these two men as equal to the Word of God. And now our new friend Jay has confirmed this inevitable conclusion for us in real time.

In all fairness to Jay, many (prob most?) of us who were in the Local Church of Witness Lee for any significant length of time held this view of Watchman and Witness, conscientiously or unconscientiously, even if we didn't shout it from the rooftops to a world-wide Internet audience. To be sure, this should not be considered as a mere "Freudian slip" - I am quite certain that Jay actually believes that the 20th century ministry and writings of these two Chinese gentleman are equal in value and authority to the living and abiding Word of God. It is this kind of attitude that caused the late Benson Phillips to proclaim that any Local Church member who leaves the movement will become "spiritually bankrupt and will never be a great spiritual person on earth" (close paraphrase) and that also caused the most blended of Blended Brothers, Minoru Chen, to boldly declare that he is "altogether filled with the spirit of Witness Lee". This is what happens to people who give over their hearts and minds to the person and work of mere, mortal men, and abandon the the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, AKA the Person and Work of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the actual, genuine teaching of the Apostles, and the current leading and fellowship of the Spirit of Truth. May God have mercy on us all.
-

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Zezima

The concept of the two trees is a perfect example of placing an idea onto the text. There is no command given by God in the garden of Eden, to eat of the Tree of Life...

Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also? Do you read the Bible much?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jay

If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it

Before this, you're quoting my post so I'll respond as if the "you" in this sentence refers to me. Nowhere in my writing did I say to throw out the concept of the economy of God. I said to throw out Lee's concept. Instead I offered mine, "Give to those who have no means to repay you in this age" which is surely just as Biblical as "God's plan to dispense Himself into His chosen people".

First, it was a core teaching of Jesus, repeated over and over. Love your neighbour as yourself. Give, and it will be given to you. Second, it was repeated by the disciples. It is better to give than to receive. How can you say that you love your neighbour if you don't share? Third, it was done, even in a focused way, by those same disciples. In his account in Galatians 2, after Paul describes himself as the openly recognized "apostle to the gentiles", he's told by the Twelve to "remember the poor".

How many footnotes did that get, even after he replies that he was eager to do this very thing? Paul's mission to the gentiles is tied to reconnecting them with the poor of Jerusalem, and this enthusiastically affirmed by Paul, and yet how many conferences did WL give on this matter, even though it was being presented as the "central lane of God's New Testament economy" in Paul's own account?

Talk about throwing out the Bible! WL's concept of God's economy is like asking someone after watching a western movie, what it was about, and hearing, "It was about men with hats riding horses". True enough - the whole movie, you could see men, hats, and horses. But by insisting that was the unique and central theme, it necessitates ignoring a lot else! In this case, pray-reading and repetitive shouting get lots of attention, and the poor are not remembered but instead dismissed.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Jay

If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it.

Ya know Jay, if you really want us to believe you when you say you don't hold the ministry and writings of Witness Lee as equal to the Bible, you might not want to go around making statements like this. That being said, I will refrain from giving any "cute little sprinkles" on this doozy for the time being.

Originally Posted by Jay

....But probably the leadership and clergy-laity aspects are very wrong and unrighteous. Which we can talk about that.

Oh Jay, we've been talking about many things very wrong and unrighteous in your little sect for about 20 years now on these Internet forums. Unfortunately, "the leadership and clergy-laity aspects" are the very least of these very wrong and unrighteous things. But I think you've probably figured that out by now.

Don't know if you'd consider this as just a "cute little sprinkle" or not, but this is the best advise I've seen on this thread so far:

Originally Posted by Zezima

This is a common response many have had when the beliefs they hold so dearly begin to wobble or collapse. I’d urge anyone with this response to consider a different approach. Read the Bible for yourself, get a reader version or non-study Bible, and just read it. No footnotes or commentary, no subject headers or outlines. Make an effort to set aside your beliefs, start from 0 as best you can and let the Bible tell you what it’s about.

Such a novel idea! "Let the Bible tell you what it's about". Of course Nee and Lee were not the only well-intentioned people who were so self-aggrandizing as to think they were the only guys on the planet uniquely qualified to tell everyone what the Bible is about, (and they won't be the last) but since they are the ones we are all most familiar with, then our sites are going to be squarely set on them and their teachings.
-

[aron]

Paul wanted Timothy to stay in Ephesus so that certain ones don’t teach myths, genealogies and such things as lead to speculations and controversy, rather than God’s economy, which is in faith. Nothing about pray-reading, just that it is in faith. To understand what Paul meant in referencing God’s economy, one must look at the ministry of Jesus, of which Paul was disciple, herald, and apostle. Jesus had taught, “Don’t store up for yourselves on earth, where moth consumes and rust destroys, and where thief breaks through and steals. Rather, give to those who can’t repay you on earth, and your reward will be great in heaven.” Clearly this is an economy based on faith. If you don't believe in a heavenly reward, why would you give, on earth? Remember, there was no 7-11 corner store, no Social Security or Medicaid. If you gave away your stuff, you died.

It is also clear that this economy or dispensational arrangement was at the forefront of the gospel work of the early church. In addition to the selling of all things and leaving the proceeds at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:32-35), a clear mark of discipleship, and the feeding of the widows (6:1-7), there was the case of the collection in Antioch for the hungry of Jerusalem, sent through Paul and Barnabas (11:29,30), even called in the RecV a dispensing (12:25) “And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, having completed the dispensing; they took along with them John, who was surnamed Mark.”

The dispensing was to give food to the hungry. Again, look at Jesus’ command: “Blessed is the servant whom the Master returns, when he finds him so doing, truly I say that he will set him over his whole house.” Doing what? Pray-reading? No, “…to give them (i. e, dispense or distribute) their food at the proper time" (Matt 24:45). That, according to Jesus, is God’s dispensation. Those who have, should give to those who do not. And it surely requires faith (and love) to do this!

According to Paul’s account in Galatians 2, when the Twelve acknowledged him as apostle to the gentiles as Peter was to the Jews, they only asked one thing – that he remember the poor. Did he cry, “No! That’s not God’s economy!”? No, rather he said that he was eager to do so! Then, when writing the Corinthians, he opens this up. Remember that in 1st Corinthians he was dealing with many critical issues in the church, but in 2 Cor these were now resolved (7:11) and he could really express his heart's full burden to the gentiles, as seen in chaps 8 and 9.

And he concludes with this: “This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of the Lord’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God. Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, others will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else. And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because of the surpassing grace God has given you. Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!” (9:12-15) The obedience of the gentiles to the gospel of Jesus Christ was their generosity for the Lord’s people in Jerusalem.

To conclude, while the scripture (cf Jer 15:16) does say that God's word is food, and gives life, it never says that this occurs via pray-reading. Instead, Jesus says that his food is in his obedience to the Father's will, expressed in His word (John 4:34). And now, just as he obeyed God’s command (or, word) and lives in the Father's love, so likewise we obey Jesus (15:10). Our obedience to God's will as expressed by Jesus' commands becomes our food, and the basis of our life.

Humankind was made in God’s image but disobeyed, and fell, with the ruinous trail of murder, theft, and lies. Then, just as sin entered through the disobedience of one man, so through the obedience of One, the redemptive path was opened (cf Rom 5). Our singular work is to believe into him, and in his one righteous obedient act, the death on the cross, and then we follow this with our obedience to the gospel, working it out by cooperating in being generous to one another, just as gentile churches were to Jerusalem through Paul.

That is God’s economy as I see it. Nothing here about pray-reading. In order to promote pray-reading and repetitive noisemaking as the “central lane of the divine economy”, WL, BP et al set aside portions of scripture as of no effect, deeming it fallen human concepts, and natural, and only showing what not to do and say! Where did Jesus or Paul ever teach this kind of interpretive approach? No, our concepts should follow "every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God." This is our daily bread.

Originally Posted by Nell

It's much harder to follow Witness Lee's methods than it is to follow the living and loving God. I never knew for sure if I was really "in spirit". I haven't asked myself such a ridiculous question in...20 years? It's truly easier to please God than it is to please the elders, and get all the methods right.

I was a member of the LC for many years. I unfortunately was fooled when I was young, by the LC recruiters. I came to realization that what the LC teaches and promotes, is the same concept of evolution that’s promoted by secular society to deny God. I understood that just like in the theory of Darwin, monkey couldn’t possibly become a human being with soul and spirit, nether in the theory of Lee a men could never become God, or same in life and nature.

I could be wrong, but I feel like Lee just used the same analogy and the Big Bang became the event when “God became a men”, therefore through the process of evolving and some dispensing, one can become God. I love the Lord, and I believe that God is amazing and loving. But one thing that I understood, that something that was created can never ever be equal to or of the same as something that was not created. God has no beginning and no end, He absolutely not ever changing or evolving, or ever needed to do anything that I was taught in LC. Jesus came into this world to redeem His creation, reuniting it with the Father. That’s the love, grace, care, and the ultimate resolve that most of us will never grasp or understand until we see Him face to face! I’m so glad today that those things that I was exposed to in LC are no longer part of my life in any shape or form. It’s liberating and feels like you actually experiencing a real loving God, after years of some systematic destruction by Lee and his successors.