What is God's Economy?

[OBW]

aron,

I have never heard any of those songs. Was I already too old when they came along? I graduated high school in 1973 just after joining up with the LC. And was gone in mid-87. Or was I just in the wrong city/region?

But they are pretty pathetic. I might have had a problem with at least some of them if I had heard them. My experience was not from within "corporate living" since our whole family "came in" together. We were our own unit. At least while I still lived there.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have never heard any of those songs. Was I already too old when they came along? I graduated high school in 1973 just after joining up with the LC. And was gone in mid-87. Or was I just in the wrong city/region?

It was from the Grey Song Book, from Bellevue WA, a spiral-bound version of the 3-ring Supplement from the 1970s. This song is also on the LSM hymnal site, ascribed to a T.R.

https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/ns/98

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And nothing wrong with that song per se, but when you overlay it with certain LC ideas like you point out (e.g., "get out of your mind"), then I can understand your issue with it.

On the contrary, there's something wrong with the song - it's an extract of WL's message, and is a vehicle for his "just eating" theme. Those words convey the core of his Mind Control Programme; the words "just" and "simply" are essential. There's no overlay, here.

NOT HAVING METHODS BUT SIMPLY EATING THE LORD JESUS

The Lord Jesus said, “I have come that they may have life and may have it abundantly.” The Lord Jesus came to be eaten by us. But what a shame it is that there are many who read the Bible, many who listen to sermons, and many who give sermons, but there is none who eats the Lord Jesus! May I ask you, How much of the Lord have you eaten today? The tree of life is not for studying but for eating. Where is the tree of life today? It is the Spirit of life in your spirit.

Forty years ago, the newly married young men always liked to come and ask me, “Brother Lee, please tell me how to be a husband.” At that time this was the kind of question I liked the most. I immediately gave them at least five commandments and told them, “Take these back with you and do them accordingly!” In doing that I also was helping people to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But today if you go to the United States and inquire of the young brothers and sisters, they will say, “If you have problems in your married life, don’t bother going to Brother Lee. He will not give you any method but will say to you, ‘Just eat the Lord Jesus, and that is good enough.’” Their word is true. Now I have no methods at all. This is not a joke. Simply eat the Lord Jesus. Dear brothers and sisters, no matter what question you bring to me, I can give you only one answer. There is only one way. There is no need for you to prepare to do anything. Simply say to the Lord, “Lord, You are in my spirit, and I am one spirit with You.” This is good enough; do not say anything more.

https://www.ministrysamples.org/exce...ORD-JESUS.HTML

These words ''just" and "simply" mean, do only this, or risk censure, being labeled vanity, or fallen, or natural, or eating from the wrong source, the TOKOGAE. In the FTTA, when we asked about "remembering the poor" as the Jerusalem brothers had asked Paul, we were told, "Don't waste your time." There was a categorical division, of what to "just" and "simply" do, and all else was negated.

And WL's "we don't have a method, we just eat" was itself a method, a focus on enjoyment, so-called. The conceit behind the "inner life" stress is that outward expressions, or doings, or works are vain. StG tells us that "works without Christ'' are unprofitable - but who's to judge which work is which? You're left to subjectivity. Is that infallible? Instead of relying on Jesus' command, we rely on our feelings, which are ripe for external manipulations.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

...much of the system of Christianity tends to practice the Christian life by "denying the power thereof." Therefore the Bible just becomes largely a set of outward principles, philosophies and ideas to follow, often without the joy of knowing Him and His resurrection life. Paul and other writers, as has been pointed out, include both. Some gravitate more toward one side or the other. I see the so-called "inner life" teachers, such as Sparks, as trying to point out that works without Christ working through us is not profitable.

Jesus told of the Good Samaritan helping someone and then said, "Go, and do likewise". Is that "largely a set of outward principles to follow, without the joy of knowing him"? If you obey Jesus' command, is that outward and joyless works? I say it's relationship through faith, obedience through faith.

The Bible tells of humankind being disobedient to God, and cut off from God as a result. Then the Last Adam came, and was obedient, and through this One, humanity's relationship to God is restored. His obedience is stressed continually in the NT. And our connection to God is through his obedience. Is that an alien concept?

"I will obey your word." Is that vain? Fallen humanity trying to be good? Or is it the Christ, in unbroken relation with his Father in heaven? A set of lifeless rules, or the Author of Life himself? Hebrews 5:8,9 make this explicit: it's the latter. He obeys, now we obey him. In Psalm 119, the "I" is none other than Jesus Christ. He obeys, and we by faith apprehend, and and believe, and confess, and live. And now as disciples we obey him. He is the King.

I will obey your teachings forever and ever. So I will live in freedom, because I want to follow your orders. I will discuss your rules with kings and will not be ashamed. I enjoy obeying your commands, which I love. I praise your commands, which I love, and I think about your demands. Remember your promise to me, your servant; it gives me hope. When I suffer, this comforts me: Your promise gives me life. Proud people always make fun of me, but I do not reject your teachings. I remember your laws from long ago, and they comfort me, LORD. I become angry with wicked people who do not keep your teachings. I sing about your demands wherever I live. LORD, I remember you at night, and I will obey your teachings. This is what I do: I follow your orders.

When Jesus came, he did the Father's will. This, he said, was his food. Then he told his disciples to obey him, even as he obeyed the Father. This was the bread that came down from heaven, to obey every word that proceeds from the Master. We have his teachings. They are not lifeless rules. As he obeyed the Father, and lived, so we obey him, and live. In John 14, v.20 "I am in you and you in me" is followed by v.21: "keep my commands". Outward obedience to commands equals inner ongoing relationship. They're not separate things, to choose to stress one or the other, as if they're somehow appositional.

Jesus told them, "Feed my sheep" and then in Acts we see Peter and Paul feeding the sheep. Obedience. Similarly, we see James' epistle repeatedly stressing to share food with those who are hungry, clothing with those who are naked. In this command/obedience framework, we can now fully appreciate the fellowship given in Galatians 2: "Remember the poor", to which Paul immediately gave eager assent. Later we see Paul writing to Romans and Corinthians, telling them to lay aside something for the poor of Jerusalem. There's here a continual unbroken narrative, should one choose to look, stretching back to the gospels, of obedience to God's specific and direct command, to love one another, not merely in word but in deed. According to Paul, the gentile churches are meant to obey, and share from their riches, just as Jesus had commanded his Galilean disciples. This obedience, and sharing (love expressed) is a sign of discipleship. Without the outward sign, there's no evidence of any inner life.

This is so completely different from ritualistic noisemaking. So completely antithetical to WL's teaching. The song lyric, "Just eating and drinking" was about ritualistic noisemaking, nothing more. The song is conceptually wrong in orientation, and is error, and a stumbling, a turning-away.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

These words ''just" and "simply" mean, do only this, or risk censure, being labeled vanity, or fallen, or natural, or eating from the wrong source, the TOKOGAE.

I wanted to add to this, but first will look at the NT as a contrast. The idea of revelation is paramount in NT text. Paul says he "knows a man" who was caught up to the third heaven, 14 years ago (2 Cor 12:2). John writes, "We beheld his glory", referring to the vision on the mountain, of the scene of transfiguration. It's interesting that in 1:14, John doesn't say that we beheld his resurrection, or his ascension, but his glory. Peter as John's companion on the mountain confirms this in some detail in 2 Peter 1:17-19.

Nowhere in this do I recall "eating" being a central motif, or even a peripheral one. Yet there was a kind of transfer: both Jesus in receiving glory as the only-begotten of the Father, and the disciples receiving revelation that changed then forever. Once they came down from the mountain, they couldn't go back, and could never see Jesus again as before. Something transcendent had happened, and irrevocable transfer from one state to another. There was a revelation, a change in their consciousness, their world-view. "We with unveiled face beheld his glory and were transfigured into the same image, from glory to glory" says Paul.

There's a reason John put his revelation of Jesus at the forefront in 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory". John is using this "beholding" to establish his position as narrator of the gospel that follows. He's not relating folk tales or hearsay, or conjuring abstract theology, but relating an established and corroborated eye-witness account.

Now look at WL's so-called revelation, his construct, his version of God's economy. "Just eating" and "simply eating" by definition exclude all other options. And the basis for these exclusionary criteria are what? That the supposed apostle and revelator Witness Lee said so. He prominently called Watchman Nee the Seer of the Divine Revelation, and he (WL) was clearly understood to be positioned as heir of WN's apostolic 'mantle' (as it was called in the LC).

So I see two very distinct revelations: one established by John, Paul, Peter, and James et al, and the other an interpretive overlay, established by a self-proclaimed apostle, which upon examination doesn't rest comfortably on the NT text at all. But because he was supposedly the apostle we didn't question it. That's the most reasonable explanation I can come up with, that one person could put out so many novel and questionable assertions, even categorically exclusionary statements, of what is and isn't in the NT and the Christian life, and nobody called it out. That's some very powerful mojo he had working there.

Imagine if someone stood up at the end of the message, and said, "I don't see where Paul is going to ask Timothy to remain in Ephesus and teach intensification of the life-giving spirit as part of 'oikonomea theou'. Where's any textual basis of asserting this?" What would happen? "Exercise your spirit, brother! Don't think, just drink!" No, just enjoy the Processed God. Why? Because I said so.

Those words "just" and "simply" are codes, and show us what's really operating in this so-called ministry. It's a subtle and powerful form of mind control. And we sang the songs lustily, not realizing what we were doing, that we were allowing ourselves to be programmed by WL. The lusty singing prevented the thinking, the critical examination, even as the words of the song replaced the former contents of our thinking. Et voila. Presto, change-o.

And lastly, I want to repeat that any understanding we have, any personal interpretation or public profession, should be toward a seamless and coherent narrative emerging from the received scriptural text. Anytime we relegate substantial sections to lesser position, to maintain our so-called revelation, we're in danger of precipitous decline from truth. John and James and Paul and Peter and Matthew and Luke were all saying the same thing. (And there's no indication that the Psalms or Job or any other OT source was treated by them in a second-tier fashion, either).

[Sons to Glory!]

Aron, I've read through what you've posted, and rather than address specific things, I've been thinking in a more general way recently - which I think actually addresses much of what we're talking about here and is possibly the actual elephant in the room with this entire forum:

Inner Life

Perhaps the real core of what this forum is about (and who it might often attract) is to a big degree related to how they view so-called "inner-life teachings." Some time ago there was a rather heated thread about inner-life teachers, or as some called them, "Christian Mystics." This includes WN, WL, Guyon, and perhaps Hannah W. Smith, Freeman, TAS and Major Ian Thomas, and some might even throw John Piper in there on occasion (plus others I'm sure).

So I'm asking myself (and Jesus), is the real aversion on this forum really about how different ones see inner-life teachings (and of course, how the LC promotes these and its own specific teachings)? Whenever - at least most of the time it seems - any of these ones' teachings are brought up, there is serious blowback from several forum members.

Or am I totally overreaching in this?

FYI - My definition of inner-life teaching is that we have Christ in us as the beginning and foundation for the Christian life.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So I'm asking myself (and Jesus), is there real aversion on this forum about how different ones see inner-life teachings?
. . . .
Or am I overreaching in this?

I suggest the latter.

The aversion is not to simply all they are saying. At some level, there is a reality to the things that we call the inner-life. But no matter how you phrase any particular type of teaching, whether inner-life teachings, personal piety teachings, Holiness, works, etc., they all are part of what we should consider the fullness of God's working earth. I avoided using any reference to the term "economy" because that has too much baggage associate with it in an LC context.

The inner-life teachers key on the vine/branches/abiding and certain other parts of the gospels, then on the spiritual underpinnings (as I call them) that the writers of the epistles, most notably Paul, speak of in their letters to the various churches as they try to help them set a better course regarding certain practical issues. For example, Paul wasn't writing to the Corinthians to get aligned behind the right teaching, to all speak in meetings, or to understand that Christ had become the Life-giving Spirit. He was writing to get them to stop squabbling about teachers; to stop pulling social rank at the Lord's table, to stop the three-ring circus that was their meetings, and to get past arguments about what kind of body they would get in resurrection. Instead, besides the specific items Paul eventually said, he also showed them a more excellent way for all of it.

But neither was the whole of the NT about getting saved and getting everyone to go out and preach the gospel to get more people saved. It sounds good, but it is not THE purpose of the church and the Christian life.

Turns out that there is a lot to consider. We do need to hear the word — both to be ready for salvation and to learn what it is that Christ taught. We need to pray. We need to continue to learn — but at what level? Is it reasonable to presume that just because we now have the ability to read and own our own bible that it was intended that we each become fully conversant in the whole thing and exert the kind of constant time that this would entail relative to what would have been considered reasonable for the average person just a very few centuries ago? Back when we mostly heard (not read) and considered a little at a time. And went out daily to live consistent with what we had heard? I think that the increase of general education has created an artificial presumption that each person's participation in more detailed study and such likewise grew. And in the process, we started to consider that the "practical" aspects of living are secular, and therefore something to disdain as opposed to the spiritual aspects of study, contemplation and prayer. We changed our understanding of the full Christian life to virtually exclude aspects of the mundane human existence. And thus came the secular-spiritual divide that is not seen in scripture.

So it is not just the inner-life teachers. It is any who distill the whole of the Christian life down to any part to the near exclusion of the other parts.

But among "serious*" Christians (meaning the "out there" groups that make waves), the problem is that without the emphasis, it is a part of the Christian life, but with the emphasis, it sets so much of the rest of the Christian life aside, or relegates it to an afterthought, or something that will "just happen" if we put on enough Christ, become crucified enough with Christ, and so on.

* I am speaking of the presumption that certain groups make relative to other Christians. For example, Evangelicals relative to the older mainline Christian groups (e.g., emphasis on personal salvation through crisis event v classes to learn about Christ and slowly come to believe). And inner-life v the rest because the rest aren't as spiritually committed. And either v liturgical groups (thinking that a good sermon but winging everything else is better than structuring it all). I admit to having some quandary in that last one, but I think that some of those old, written prayers might be more meaningful if you take them seriously than some off-the-cuff hodgepodge of popular snippets of scripture are.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

But among "serious*" Christians (meaning the "out there" groups that make waves), the problem is that without the emphasis, it is a part of the Christian life, but with the emphasis, it sets so much of the rest of the Christian life aside, or relegates it to an afterthought, or something that will "just happen" if we put on enough Christ, become crucified enough with Christ, and so on.

So what would you say was the purpose for Paul's letter to the Galatians, in simple terms of a few sentences?

[UntoHim]

What does the purpose for Paul's letter to the Galatians have to do with this thread? Does the word oikonomía even appear in Galatians? If so, in what context?

Let's keep our eye on the ball. The ball is God's Economy.
-