The Gospel Versus "God's Economy"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Is the idea of a "processed" Triune God found elsewhere in Christianity?

Yes, many Christian groups teach about incarnation, human living, resurrection and ascension in this way.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I was reading in an LC ministry book recently and this phrase, "...God Himself [was] processed to be the life-giving Spirit" struck me.

God was processed. The processed Triune God.

I understand that God "went through a process" on earth. I am fine with that. But to say that "God was processed" hits me with a clang.

WL's MO, trying to convert standard Christian teachings into ones that slap you in the face and then pretend that it is some great revelation on his part that has never been revealed before.

Originally Posted by Trapped

We can easily say "I am going through the process to apply to the army". Or "I am going through the process to become a lawyer." But no one in their right mind would ever then say, "I was processed to be a lawyer. I am a processed lawyer."

Are you saying WL was not in his right mind? WL wanted to differentiate himself from all other Christian teachers. That supports the whole MOTA, one publication, and there is no other light elsewhere themes he was always using.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Is this another weird Lee-ism not found elsewhere? I did a google search for "the processed God" and all results relevant to the meaning of that phrase came back LSM-related. Is there some benefit to presenting God in this way?

Ten thousand believers who think you are the only one with a vision of God's plan. All of whom will spend $100+ on LSM books, trainings, and translations.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I can't explain it but it's such an odd structure that it depersonalizes God for me. "God was processed" somehow removes God's participation in the process and makes it seem like some independent process was applied to him, like processed ham on a conveyor belt, rather than His being an active participant? I don't know. Hoping for others' input.

Not that odd. Perhaps he couldn't sleep, turned on late night TV and saw an add for a food processor and then the light bulb went off. "I too could be a salesman". English was not his first language so probably copied much of the salesman's pitch changing a few key terms.

[aron]

In Acts 2:32 Peter says, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.".

We may say that Peter witnessed a 'process'. But when I read Peter's story, I see the focus on a person: "this Jesus". The Jesus Peter knew. The person Peter was with, whom Peter loved. This Jesus was still alive and very much with Peter, not through theology but through presence.

The danger on considering the abstract, "God's economy" view is that at some point we lose the presence of person. This is suggested as well by the many young ones who "can't make it", who are told they are now defective. The "subjective Christ" of the ministry zealots doesn't work for them; it just doesn't, sorry. So are they the failures, here? They have just as much right to their own subjective impressions of what the 'processed God' does for them, as what it did for their parents. And these young ones have spoken with their feet, and have left.

To me this is the clearly evident fruit - many cast off, disillusioned, frustrated young people. They got an idea, an ideology, but unless they give themselves to promote the ministry the warm fuzzies die away alarmingly fast. When they were young, 8, 10, 14 years old, they did what they were told. They went to the meetings and went through the motions. But nothing came. Eventually the ministry demands and the perceived pay-offs didn't match, so they left.

At the Lord's Table meeting, they heard, "Ohhh Loooord Jeeeezusss… we just care about youuuuu! We just love youuuuuu!", but when the meeting is over they heard talk about the ministry and "the Lord's move" and "building the Body" (of ministry acolytes) and so forth. The young ones see the disconnect, the hypocrisy 24/7. So they bail. . . all the orthodoxy props don't hold it up. To them, it's an empty lifeless shell.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

In Acts 2:32 Peter says, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.".

We may say that Peter witnessed a 'process'. But when I read Peter's story, I see the focus on a person: "this Jesus". The Jesus Peter knew. The person Peter was with, whom Peter loved.

Why is it dangerous to look at the word from a different angle? It seems to me the biggest danger is telling people how not to read the Bible and what the Bible does not say.

Originally Posted by aron

The danger on considering the abstract, "God's economy" view is that at some point we lose the person. This is suggested as well by the many young ones who "can't make it", who are told they are now defective. The "subjective Christ" of the ministry zealots doesn't work for them; it just doesn't, sorry. So are they the failures, here? They have just as much right to their own subjective impressions of what the 'processed God' does for them, as what it did for their parents. And these young ones have spoken with their feet, and have left.

I don't see the connection. In every Christian group of any size (tens of thousands or more) there will be young people who "can't make it" yet many of those other groups don't have this teaching. I think it is a very big stretch to say that this teaching results in losing view of the person of Jesus, etc.