What is God's Economy?

[UntoHim]

God’s economy is God’s plan, God’s arrangement, for God to dispense Himself in His element, life, nature, and attributes, and all that He has achieved and attained into His chosen people that they may be rebuilt by being constituted with the divine essence in the divine element of the divine source to be something divine. Before receiving God’s dispensing, we were merely human. After God’s rebuilding with the divine constitution we, like the Lord Jesus, become divinely human and humanly divine. Before incarnation Christ was only divine, but after His incarnation He became a God-man, a man with the divine nature. Now He is divinely human, and He is also humanly divine. Having been regenerated by Christ, we have become a part of Him, and now we are the same as He is—divinely human and humanly divine.
(Life-study of Job, pp. 57-58)

I'm not sure when the Life Study of Job was....but whatever happened to "Hallelujah eating Jesus is the way!"? No wonder the Training banners kept getting longer and longer. "rebuilt by being constituted with the divine essence in the divine element of the divine source to be something divine"? Wow, I'm out of breath just reading this! Very novel. Very interesting. Not very biblical.

"and now we are the same as He is"? I think there is a verse that says that "we will be like Him"....but how did this get transformed to "we are the same as He is". Sounds like quite a leap. "Divinely human and humanly divine"? Very novel. Very interesting. Not very biblical.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"and now we are the same as He is"? I think there is a verse that says that "we will be like Him"....but how did this get transformed to "we are the same as He is". Sounds like quite a leap. "Divinely human and humanly divine"? Very novel. Very interesting. Not very biblical. [/COLOR]
-

Could they just start with a little love? Brotherly love, and not brotherLee love?

And stop condemning their brothers, suing their brothers, quarantining their brothers over endless petty nonsense?

Isn't the goal of God's economy love out of a pure heart? (I Timothy 1.5)

[aron]

The following is a continuation of post #259

Originally Posted by aron

Is alms-giving a "dead work" in the NT? Here's Paul in Acts 24:17 - "After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings."

Matthew 6:2-4 When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

I know that giving alms was ignored in the local churches and actively suppressed in the FTTA. But it does fit a pattern of both teaching and practice in the NT, starting in the gospels, as seen above.

The idea is that you give to someone who cannot pay you back, "pay it forward" by faith, and you'll be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous. "Store up for yourselves treasure in heaven." ~Matthew 6:19-21.

This preserves the giver from being weighted down by earthly cares. "Will not your Father in heaven also clothe you, of so little faith?" And see Zachaeus, who gave half his wealth to the poor -"Salvation has come to this house".

And it also saves the receiver: not just from want, but from thinking that God doesn't care for them. This is the good news: God loves you. God hasn't forgotten you. God's outstretched arm can reach you and save you. If we give a cup of cold water to a thirsty one, in the name of Jesus, it will be remembered.

And it makes the word in Didache timely: "Let your alms sweat in the palms of your hands before you know who to give them to." In the Book of Acts it was easy: lay your gift at the apostles' feet. They were a sort of clearing-house for alms (I blame the RecV repeatedly using the word 'dispensing' in Acts for putting me on this path ).

But today it's not so straightforward regarding how to participate in "God's economy" in this manner, which is why the Didache's advice is so useful.

[aron]

In Acts 21:20 James is telling Paul about the many thousands of Jews who have believed the resurrection/Messiah-ship of Jesus. When James said, "They're all zealous for the law", Paul didn't exclaim, "No! James! That's not God's economy!" That's what our LC exegete did as he read us the passage in a "training meeting". Everyone chuckled at his theatrics.

But Paul didn't say that, nor did Luke say James' speaking was wrong.

It took me years post-LC to begin to think again, to look at the passages for what they said and not what some Bible expository wished they said.

Let me digress for a moment before I get to my point. Clearly the world, like the universe beyond, is filled with diversity. "All creatures, both great and small, the LORD God made them all." So why were we supposed to become identical mindless automatons in the Robot Factory? Was that supposed to please God? Or, rather, some control freak usurping God?

If a 38 year-old mother of two writes an open letter to the saints in the Lord's recovery, and two months later they have to convene a Special Synod to urge 900 ex-trainees not to look at or discuss the contents of that letter, is that the kingdom of God? Doesn't look very robust, to me. Does God really forbid that anyone should actually read, think, question, speak or write?

Well, it took me years, and this forum helped me immensely. I too could read, think, hold forth ideas. Some might be good, some might be clunkers, but that is what the 'ekklesia' or assembly is for.

So I read the end of Acts, and Paul says, "After many years I came back to Jerusalem, bringing alms for my nation" and I thought, "Hey! Maybe that's God's economy!" I mean, look at how many times in Acts the RecV uses the word 'dispensing' in just this manner. Plus Paul devotes what, 4 separate chapters on the subject. ~2 Cor 7 & 8, 1 Cor 15, Rom 15.

And in Galatians 2:10, when James & co tell Paul to continue to "remember the poor" he doesn't say, "No! That's not God's economy" but he says he's eager to do that very thing. Not just to do it, but to continue doing it. Because it's God's economy" Those who have excess have none left over, and those without do not lack. Again, see 2 Cor 7:13-15.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Could they just start with a little love? Brotherly love, and not brotherLee love?

And stop condemning their brothers, suing their brothers, quarantining their brothers over endless petty nonsense?

Isn't the goal of God's economy love out of a pure heart? (I Timothy 1.5)

Hear Hear . . . and AMEN!

Love is the missing ingredient, and without love there is nothing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Isn't the goal of God's economy love out of a pure heart? (I Tim 1:5)

Linking God's economy with love, as Ohio does, is probably important. Jesus taught, "Give to those who can't repay you in this age, and you'll be rewarded in the resurrection of the righteous." To those who ask for a coat, yield your shirt also. And Paul talked a lot about being made poor, so that others might be blessed. Jesus did it, now we do it. In 1 Timothy, God's economy is based on faith (1:4). Let go of what is "yours", what's in your hand, believing that the Father will take care of you. And the issue of letting go, the goal, is love out of a pure heart. Love isn't a merely a feeling, it's a doing that endures ~1 Cor 13:7. It's a consistent reaching out, beyond oneself, to those too weak to reach back, and to repay in this age. Do you love? Then give. If you give, then you truly love.

Now, Paul's collection for Jerusalem in this light makes perfect sense. Paul says that he was told to by the elders in Jerusalem and he was eager to comply. And note that the charge in Galatians 2:10 was to "continue" the collection - it was an ongoing affair... note the repeated use of the word "dispensing" in Acts 6:1 and 12:25 (RecV).

But it wasn't merely cash transfer from Gentile to Jew. It was love. It was remembrance, it was recognition, emotion-fueled acknowledgement, fellowship, grace. It was no different from Dorcas making shirts for the widows, or Barnabas selling a certain property an laying the proceeds at the apostles' feet. It was faith, letting go, storing treasure in heaven. For where your treasure is, your heart will be.

It was God's economy. Now, my point in all of this isn't to say Brother Lee was wrong and I'm right. But there's probably more scriptural support for my position than for his. I can think of 4 whole chapters by Paul (1 Cor 15, Rom 15, 2 Cor 7,8) that are focused on this theme. Not to mention the climax of Galatians 2 and the bulk of Acts.

The two positions aren't "right" or "wrong" per se, but Brother Lee simply said, "God's economy is such-and-such" even when Paul never defined it that way. Lee's position was his conceptual overlay on scripture, and I've briefly outlined my alternative (and they're not necessarily mutually exclusive).

But "masticating the Processed Triune God and becoming God in life and nature" is entirely conceptual and can go on and on without any actual earthly analog. (In fact it seems to go on without much 'transformation' in some of its principals!) But love needs earthly expression, or it's not love. And the "God's economy" I see in Jesus' teaching, and lived out and taught in Acts, and recommended in epistles, is clearly based on faith, and has a goal of love. Love expresses itself by giving, by sharing, by reaching out to those who cannot currently reciprocate. So I'm tending myself more toward the latter interpretation. (now I just have to live it- haha)

2 Corinthians 8:7 Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.

8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.

9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

10 And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago.

11 Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have.(KJV)

Paul's gospel of Jesus Christ was very specific, what he gave up and what he got. And Paul was also clear, if you know how to read his epistles, in what he wanted his Gentile converts to give up, what "perform the doing" in v.11 entailed. Those 4 chapters cited above, combined with the pattern of Gospels and the Acts, make a compelling case for what Paul referenced in 1 Timothy 1 when he held them to teaching "God's economy".

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Now, my point in all of this isn't to say Brother Lee was wrong and I'm right. But there's probably more scriptural support for my position than for his. I can think of 4 whole chapters by Paul (1 Cor 15, Rom 15, 2 Cor 7,8) that are focused on this theme. Not to mention the climax of Galatians 2 and the bulk of Acts.

The two positions aren't "right" or "wrong" per se, but Brother Lee simply said, "God's economy is such-and-such" even when Paul never defined it that way. Lee's position was his conceptual overlay on scripture, and I've briefly outlined my alternative...

If God's economy per Witness Lee was what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 1, wouldn't there be some explanation by Paul corroborating this? Instead it was conceptual fabrication by WL. There's more textual support by Paul on "continue to remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do" (Gal 2:10) and "he who had abundance had no excess and he with little had no lack" (2 Cor 8:15) than there for "eating the processed and consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature."

WL made his idea the cornerstone of his ministry, but if Paul did likewise, he surely didn't do so in writing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

If God's economy per Witness Lee was what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 1, wouldn't there be some explanation by Paul corroborating this? Instead it was conceptual fabrication by WL..... "eating the processed and consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature."

WL made his idea the cornerstone of his ministry, but if Paul did likewise, he surely didn't do so in writing.

I'd like to bring forward a comment I made on another thread. But I was already off topic, so will continue here.

Originally Posted by aron

... the burden of proof is on Witness Lee to show that "God's economy" was what he said it was. Where does Paul or Jesus or anyone say "God's economy is this Processed Triune God and spiritual dispensing"? No, it was stitched together out of disparate pictures and types.

I only offer my alternative as a reply to one who says, "Well, what else could it possibly be?" It could be something like what I have briefly outlined. Or it could be something else. But there's no proof that it was what Lee said it was. And Lee's version was self-oriented, which makes me doubly suspicious. My version is more closely aligned with the great command "Love thy neighbor as thyself". As are all the examples which I cited above.

My critique of the WL model of "God's economy is threefold: first that it has no basis - nowhere did Paul say, "God's economy is 'X'" and WL continued or fleshed this out. No, WL simply said, "God's economy is 'X'" and fleshed out his interpretation with various homespun analogies. Man is like a water bottle. Made to be filled. Man is like a glove, needs a hand inside. All these analogies may have some merit but I wouldn't build doctrine on it.

Second is that it gets the believer to focus on self. "Am I going to make it" was the watchword. First they start out with your "enjoyment" and then they go to anxiety, which can only be relieved (temporarily) by succumbing to ministry machinations. You are set up for a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship.

Third, to hold it together it seemed that Lee had to pan great swaths of scripture as "low" and "dead works" etc, which seem to include works by Jesus and Paul. See my previous posts.

My advocacy of an entirely different 'economy' which I encapsulate in Galatians 2:10 -- "They (the Jerusalem elders) asked me to remember the poor, which I was eager to do" -- is based on three things. First, it better aligns with the mass of scripture, both OT and NT. So both the apostle to the Jews (Peter) and the apostle to the gentiles (Paul) agreed that this was a desirable aim, and one sees Paul carry this out, in detail, in his epistles and the Acts.

Second, it lines up better with the Great Command: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and not focus on your own things.

Third, my experience, however tentative and fraught with failure, bears this out. When I was in the LC, I got euphoric rush hollering, "OHHH Loooooord Jeeeeezusss!!" with the crowd. But eventually I found myself with the same issues I came in with. The elders didn't want to deal with me. So I left. Then followed the proverbial 'wilderness' experience. One day, I had an epiphany -- I was here to serve others. God gave me the Servant Heart of Jesus. Suddenly I realized that I was here, not for myself, but to serve others. It completely transformed me. Suddenly everything changed. And as I began to focus my energies to care for others, God began, slowly and fitfully, to heal me.

As long as I was oriented on self - "making it" - I had misery and discontent. As soon as I found someone to minister to, not caring for any return, I felt the Spirit come alongside. Occasionally I still call "Oh Lord" but it's the doing that really matters. It is truly better to give than to receive.

And to me, that is God's economy.

2 Cor 8:15 as it is written: "The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little."

Luke 6:38 "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

[JJ]

Aron, your posts re God’s economy have stirred a reaction and response from me for a number of reasons. One is that God first came to make his presence known to me while I was reading God’s Economy by Witness Lee. And at the time He made clear to me that He wanted me to read that book. The experience was so moving that even to this day it is clear that my calling as a Christian is related to this term “God’s Economy”. So, imagine my questioning what that was all about years later when the same God clearly leads me to see big problems with Witness Lee’s teachings (including that very book) and out of “the local churches”.

I have spent hours and hours researching in the Bible the use of the word and of its roots that Bible translators (including LSM) inconsistently translate as economy, stewardship, and other words. I have posted elsewhere on these boards a synthesis of my conclusions. So, I won’t fully repeat that.

What I would like to do is suggest that the definition and explanation you give for God’s economy is what maturity as a steward in God’s house rightfully (which is the assembly or ekklesia of God, commonly called “the church”) rightfully includes: a life of serving others, even dying and “pouring out” so that others may live in Christ. Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood is part of that stewardship (probably a better English word to use), and one never graduates from that (witness “communion”... “the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘this is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”)

Paul clearly said to Timothy that God’s stewardship “is in faith”. The writer of Hebrews says faith is “the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11) He also goes on to show us many examples of how men and women of God first believed God, were counted righteous by God, then lived out that faith out in righteous acts of service that rendered blessings to God’s people, at great cost to themselves during their lifetimes. And, Paul in Romans (10:17) says “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ”.

So, I conclude that God’s stewardship (or economy) involves faith (hearing and believing the word of Christ, and doing what Christ’s word calls us to do; that includes eating his body and drinking his blood (matters He said are of the words He speaks to us which are spirit and life https://biblehub.com/text/john/6-63.htm) and that he who does that will live by Him). What does living by Him look like? Paul said “through the law I died to the law so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me (Gal. 2:19-20). We know from reading Acts and the epistles that the life Paul lived in the body was one of being a steward of God. That stewardship included preaching the gospel of Christ (which he laid before the apostles who were in Christ before him plus “remembering the poor, which very thing I was eager to do” {Gal. 2}). We also know that Paul remembered the poor by helping to bring them material aid as documented in Acts and his epistles. Serving others through preaching the gospel and aiding the poor are therefore the end result of God’s stewardship. Eating and drinking Christ through his word in spirit together with other believers sustains it and neither that nor serving others selflessly should be dismissed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

One is that God first came to make his presence known to me while I was reading God’s Economy by Witness Lee. And at the time He made clear to me that He wanted me to read that book. The experience was so moving that even to this day it is clear that my calling as a Christian is related to this term “God’s Economy”.

In and of itself, Lee's book is not bad, and actually has many good points. Like many ministers, Lee made numerous inferences. They become problematic when taken to the extreme. Having spent some time in a Pentecostal-Lite congregation, I see the same problems there. To some zealots, every mention of "spirit" is an exhortation to speak in tongues.

As I have said before, the Bible alone is balanced. All commentaries are skewed. Sure they can be helpful, just as long as they are not your only source. Lee had a structured accounting mind, and he saw everything in structured columns. Thus Satan must be the tree of knowledge now occupying our flesh, and so forth.

This is how I eventually viewed God's economy. In our human economy money is everything, the medium by which all exchanges are made. We work for money so we can spent our money. All we do, and every part of our life, is fueled by money in some way. Likewise God's Economy is the grace of Christ. Everything in our Christian life is fueled by His grace in our lives. His grace is our fellowship with one another, our love for others, our spiritual supply when exhausted, our wisdom when confused, our encouragement during failures, our gospel to others, etc.

I know this analogy might sound bad, but it worked for me. Perhaps it was no more than a survival technique or a coping mechanism during all of those messages I had to sit thru on God's Economy.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

My critique of the WL model of "God's economy is threefold: first that it has no basis - nowhere did Paul say, "God's economy is 'X'" and WL continued or fleshed this out. No, WL simply said, "God's economy is 'X'" and fleshed out his interpretation with various homespun analogies. . . .

This is what so many have been pointing out, both directly and indirectly, for years.

Lee used analogies as proof of concept.

But analogies are, at best, a means of clarifying or understanding a concept that has already been proved.

In other words, you have to establish that something is true, then if that something needs further explanation, an analogy might be useful.

An analogy is descriptive. It has no power to establish, but rather to better understand something else. If you haven't established anything, there is nothing to which an analogy can be made.

An example I like is Lee's extrapolation in some verse (one of Paul's letters, but I can't remember which — makes me feel a little like the writer of Hebrews who says "and somewhere it is written . . .") where the Greek word used is one that has been transliterated in English to dynamo (not in the Bible as such). Then he goes on to bring every related bit of technology related to dynamos into the discussion. So a single statement of the power of God (or Christ) becomes evidence of the power plant, the wires, and the electricity — the triune God.

But nothing is actually there except the power of God. The rest is supposition based on milking a metaphor.

In the case of Lee's theory on God's economy, he creates a lens through which the entire Bible must be filtered, modified, and even excised because of his extrapolations as he declares "it is like when . . . ."

But worse than that, when Paul wrote those few verses in which the term "God's economy" appears (in some translations), he did not say that God's economy was something to teach. Rather it was the result of the collection of healthy teachings. So God's economy is not the source of how to teach, or what to teach, but is what comes from whatever is profitably taught. In other words, God's economy is a very broad thing that encompasses everything that derives rightly from the teachings of the word of God. It is not a limiter by which the word of God is straight-jacketed into some narrowly-defined thing (falsely) labeled "God's economy."

If God's economy is claimed to be a basis for dismissing the word of God as written in favor of something not written, or for simply dismissing parts of the word of God, then it cannot rightly be "God's economy." Maybe the economy of some"god," or self-proclaimed 4th of the godhead. (Can't call it the Godhead because there are only three in that Godhead.)

[UntoHim]

Many thanks to OBW, JJ and aron for your incredibly insightful posts! I don't think it is any coincidence that the views that these brothers have shared are coming from longtime former Local Churchers who have gone through the crucible of years within the LC movement, some years in the wilderness, and many years working their way back to some semblance of a biblically healthy place. Of course I wholeheartedly agree, for I have gone through the very same crucible.

The simple fact is that Witness Lee's "God's Economy" is man-centered, man-focused, and when all the dust settles, entirely man-made. And this is the reason that Lee and his followers have such a poor appreciation of the Gospel. They virtually ignore all the biblical passages that plainly show that the focus of the entire Bible is God-centered and God-focused. - "In the beginning was God". "Say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you". "The end of the matter; Fear God and keep his commandments". "For God so loved the world". "The Kingdom of God is at hand!". "Then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God".

Of course these are just a few verses out of the thousands in the Bible, but I think when taken as a whole - the whole counsel of God - the Scriptures are shown to be altogether God-centered, God-focused, unlike Lee's "God's Economy", which is altogether man-centered and man-focused.
-

[JJ]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is what so many have been pointing out, both directly and indirectly, for years.

Lee used analogies as proof of concept.

But analogies are, at best, a means of clarifying or understanding a concept that has already been proved.

In other words, you have to establish that something is true, then if that something needs further explanation, an analogy might be useful.

An analogy is descriptive. It has no power to establish, but rather to better understand something else. If you haven't established anything, there is nothing to which an analogy can be made.

An example I like is Lee's extrapolation in some verse (one of Paul's letters, but I can't remember which — makes me feel a little like the writer of Hebrews who says "and somewhere it is written . . .") where the Greek word used is one that has been transliterated in English to dynamo (not in the Bible as such). Then he goes on to bring every related bit of technology related to dynamos into the discussion. So a single statement of the power of God (or Christ) becomes evidence of the power plant, the wires, and the electricity — the triune God.

But nothing is actually there except the power of God. The rest is supposition based on milking a metaphor.

In the case of Lee's theory on God's economy, he creates a lens through which the entire Bible must be filtered, modified, and even excised because of his extrapolations as he declares "it is like when . . . ."

But worse than that, when Paul wrote those few verses in which the term "God's economy" appears (in some translations), he did not say that God's economy was something to teach. Rather it was the result of the collection of healthy teachings. So God's economy is not the source of how to teach, or what to teach, but is what comes from whatever is profitably taught. In other words, God's economy is a very broad thing that encompasses everything that derives rightly from the teachings of the word of God. It is not a limiter by which the word of God is straight-jacketed into some narrowly-defined thing (falsely) labeled "God's economy."

If God's economy is claimed to be a basis for dismissing the word of God as written in favor of something not written, or for simply dismissing parts of the word of God, then it cannot rightly be "God's economy." Maybe the economy of some"god," or self-proclaimed 4th of the godhead. (Can't call it the Godhead because there are only three in that Godhead.)

Yes, silly me. I believed Nee and Lee’s books that told us to look in the Bible for what other verses say about the same matter first. But since they supposedly had already done that (Nee was a Savant, remember, and Nee his prized pupil). So, all we had to do was sit there jammed into those awful gold chairs an inch between us listening to the little man in the suit with a white shirt, tie, and coke bottle glass eyeglasses explain to the thousands of us around the world for the 10,000th time at least 7 times a year what God’s economy was and how every single verse in the Bible was about it.... and the local churches were the procedure for building the New Jerusalem today....

Well funny thing happened. Sounds like a bunch of us started doing that. Reading what other verses in the Bible say about a matter, and listening to what other Christians were reading from the Bible and fellowshipping with them. And, the Savant and his self declared #1 follower missed some things that were as plain as the noses on their face. Like “God’s economy is in faith” right there! And gee, Hebrews gives a definition of faith and examples of it in action. No need for analogies. Put the two together and there’s the answer.

Hundreds of verses with relevant insights elsewhere were totally ignored because “they were from the wrong tree”, according to Lee. Those very verses fill in key matters that could round out and fill in deficiencies in teachings that ultimately led to abuses. God’s mercy, loving kindness, lampooned, Biblical leadership models, good works, helping the poor, orphans, widows, not showing favoritism. What fruit of the Spirit looks like and doesn’t. Works lived out from a life of faith, Singing and reading every Psalm, Hymns, and spiritual songs with all your heart to the Lord and instruments, James, all of Job, every Proverb. What the Bible really says about husband and wife relationships, brothers, and sisters, the body of Christ, Jesus the Head and not MOTA, the list goes on. Nee and Lee missed a lot! God-men bleh! How about men filled with The Holy Spirit obeying The Lord Spirit to do as Jesus did and lay down equality with God to reach sinners, work together, and relate to them where they are? How about we are all members of the same church... really! One Ekklesia. That’s what I thought we were about!

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by aron

I'd like to bring forward a comment I made on another thread. But I was already off topic, so will continue here.



My critique of the WL model of "God's economy is threefold: first that it has no basis - nowhere did Paul say, "God's economy is 'X'" and WL continued or fleshed this out. No, WL simply said, "God's economy is 'X'" and fleshed out his interpretation with various homespun analogies. Man is like a water bottle. Made to be filled. Man is like a glove, needs a hand inside. All these analogies may have some merit but I wouldn't build doctrine on it.

Second is that it gets the believer to focus on self. "Am I going to make it" was the watchword. First they start out with your "enjoyment" and then they go to anxiety, which can only be relieved (temporarily) by succumbing to ministry machinations. You are set up for a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship.

Third, to hold it together it seemed that Lee had to pan great swaths of scripture as "low" and "dead works" etc, which seem to include works by Jesus and Paul. See my previous posts.

My advocacy of an entirely different 'economy' which I encapsulate in Galatians 2:10 -- "They (the Jerusalem elders) asked me to remember the poor, which I was eager to do" -- is based on three things. First, it better aligns with the mass of scripture, both OT and NT. So both the apostle to the Jews (Peter) and the apostle to the gentiles (Paul) agreed that this was a desirable aim, and one sees Paul carry this out, in detail, in his epistles and the Acts.

Second, it lines up better with the Great Command: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and not focus on your own things.

Third, my experience, however tentative and fraught with failure, bears this out. When I was in the LC, I got euphoric rush hollering, "OHHH Loooooord Jeeeeezusss!!" with the crowd. But eventually I found myself with the same issues I came in with. The elders didn't want to deal with me. So I left. Then followed the proverbial 'wilderness' experience. One day, I had an epiphany -- I was here to serve others. God gave me the Servant Heart of Jesus. Suddenly I realized that I was here, not for myself, but to serve others. It completely transformed me. Suddenly everything changed. And as I began to focus my energies to care for others, God began, slowly and fitfully, to heal me.

As long as I was oriented on self - "making it" - I had misery and discontent. As soon as I found someone to minister to, not caring for any return, I felt the Spirit come alongside. Occasionally I still call "Oh Lord" but it's the doing that really matters. It is truly better to give than to receive.

And to me, that is God's economy.

2 Cor 8:15 as it is written: "The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little."

Luke 6:38 "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Amen Aron!