What is God's Economy?

[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!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JJ

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.

I never got that much out of all this discussions in the LC about God's economy. I realized there was an administration in the universe, but in the LC I saw it more as a heavy-hand God used to roll out His purpose . . . and if we got in His way, we would be crushed.

But a couple years ago we were going over God's administration and I received some light. It's the structure He uses, in His house, to ensure everyone gets what they need. God's purpose is not somehow apart from us, it is fully involving us as the "objects" of His great love and His caring purpose toward us.

A good picture is how the human household should be. The father of the house provides the safety, security and necessities for all who live in the house. The wife/mother is a partner in this, and together they supply all the needs, in love, to every member of the household. This greatly benefits the whole family and love is flowing between each member. Sometimes a little discipline is needed, and it is provided - again, in love and for the benefit of the family member.

I saw that the God-given structure of husband/wife, father/mother/children was all about love, and the growth & development of the family members. I believe this picture is a more proper understanding of God's household economy.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

. . . I realized there was an administration in the universe, but in the LC I saw it more as a heavy-hand God used to roll out His purpose . . .

And in that little bit is a revelation of the nature of God's economy as seen by Nee and Lee. It is a lens through which to view everything else. And the nature of that lens was defined in a manner that was effectively useless as a true lens.

But more than that, it seems to me that thinking of it as "an administration in the universe," while not simply incorrect, tends to miss the direction of the verses that introduce the concept. They are not introducing a divine administration that doles out everything or runs everything. Rather it is pointing to things (in the particular case, teachings) that result in God's economy. So the emphasis is not on the administration and what it does, but on the things that bring it about. To use a poor analogy, it is not a discussion of horsepower generated by internal combustion engines, but on the factors that result in that horsepower. Lee was focused on God's economy as being the source and cause rather than the result of something else. So God's economy is the result of so much. It is not the cause. Not saying that it has no results, but that is not what the verses were saying.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

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...

At one point I learned about esoteric (private) versus exoteric (public) teachings. In the gospels, Jesus taught his disciples privately. He had public utterances, then would pull his disciples aside and go further. See, e.g., Mark 4:34 "He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything."

Of course, this continued, post-gospels. There were public utterances, and private conversations, some alluded to in written scripture. And so it remains for us to puzzle out some of the cryptic references, and the variously-placed allusions.

Witness Lee put it this way: "The Bible… does not always give us all the details about a matter in one place. Rather, it reveals a small portion in one place and another portion in another place. We may compare this to a jigsaw puzzle. We do not keep the pieces of a puzzle in a meaningless pile. Rather, we need adequate time and wisdom to put all the pieces together in a significant way. Do not ask the reason that the Lord reveals His mysteries in the divine Word in such a puzzle-like way. This is simply the case." ~WL "The Producing and Building Up of the Church..." p. 19

Of course, church teachers have been doing this for centuries: formulating coherent doctrines from disparate sections of scripture. But what happens when, as JJ says above, that formulation required the discarding of significant sections of scripture? What happens when that interpretation tells us parts of scripture are "low", some are "fallen", some are "natural concepts", some are "mixed sentiments" and so forth? Instead, in the NT Jesus taught that "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" and Paul said "all scripture is God-breathed".

Witness Lee's abstract derivations were promoted as "high peaks" while scriptural commands like visiting widows and orphans, the sick, the imprisoned, were denigrated. I heard it in the FTTA: "Don't waste your time" we were told. So any esoteric (not plainly written) teaching that leads us so far away from the actual written scripture (exoteric teaching) should be seriously examined and critiqued, as we're doing here.

When the apostles in Jerusalem told Paul to "remember the poor" did he reply, "I'm not here for that. I'm here for the high peaks of the divine economy"? No, he said he was "eager to do it". So, maybe THAT was the divine economy, to Paul? At the very least, the "pieces of the puzzle" ask us to consider it.

Originally Posted by OBW

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."

This point is actually crucial. 1 Timothy doesn't say, "Teach God's economy" but "teach things that result in God's economy" Healthy teachings bring profitable behaviours.

What are good behaviours? "Give to those who cannot repay you in this age, and your reward will be great in heaven". This giving today, with expectation of reward in the resurrection of the righteous, is "in faith", as Paul says: "God's economy, which is in faith." If you look at this kind of repeated, open teaching in the gospels, and see it carried out by the apostles in the Book of Acts, you do see a pattern. Again, look at the "daily dispensing" in Acts 6:1; look at Paul and Barnabas' "dispensing" in Acts 12:25. Etc.

Suddenly, James' plain, 'exoteric' prescription that true religion is to visit widows and orphans in their afflictions doesn't look all that "low". And Witness Lee's esoteric derivations, while perhaps not untrue in and of themselves, don't seem like the "central lane of the divine economy", as one LSM cheerleader (BP) used to sell it.

[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!