What is God's Economy?

[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.
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by 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.
-

I was going to say the same thing. The topic is, What is God's economy? I gave my summation of WL's take, which was to be filled in spirit with the mingled Spirit of God, to be metabolically transformed inwardly to become [the same as] God in life and nature.

Now that may be a noble and fine thing indeed, and we can of course offer Bible verses, but where does Paul say that this is God's economy? Nowhere is where. I've also made the point, and haven't yet seen a reply from Shepherding Words, that it seems odd to think that Paul asked Timothy for 'intensification' to be taught to facilitate God's economy, since there's no record whatsoever that Paul ever taught intensification. So how then do they say, "God's economy is carried out in 3 stages"? Whatever is carried out in 3 stages, it isn't what Paul was writing about.

No, the "God's economy" of WL was a hodge-podge, an amalgam of disparate verses, some unrelated to Paul[!], read back onto the scripture. I've gone into this already.

My proposed alternative was that Paul's view of "oikonomea theou" was best seen in his second epistle to the Corinthians, chapters 8 and 9. There, he goes into some detail about how the gentile churches can share with feeding the poor widows of Jerusalem (cf Acts 6:1). The verse which seems to sum it up best is, "He who gathers much has no excess, he who gathers little has no lack." (2 Cor 8:15). In this nod to the Exodus journey, the Great Commandment is fulfilled - we should love one another not merely in word but in deed, in generosity.

(And I can't overstress that if reading James' epistle in this light confirms that James and Paul shared the same vision. This is probably the most crucial benefit of this interpretation: the NT becomes whole. [I remember reading that Luther wanted to exclude James from the canon, along with Tobit and Maccabees, but was convinced to include it, yet only after Revelation!])

Now, how does Galatians fit into my proposed reading? I daresay the climax of Galatians isn't the confrontation between Paul and Peter in Antioch. It occurs right before that, when Peter, James and John tell Paul, "Remember the poor", and Paul readily accedes. Paul was sharing this vignette with the Galatians to make them understand the core of his mission. The gentiles were now grafted into the body of believers, as full members, not associate members. Ephesians 2:11-21 has probably the clearest explanation of Paul's view, but it applies here: the Galatians were once cut off, alienated from the hope of Israel, but now have been brought nigh by the blood of Christ. The two, gentile and Jew, are now one in Christ Jesus. It's a remarkable vision, which I believe is the capstone of Paul's written ministry. The two have become one. Paul has been given the ministry of reconciliation, and the enmity, the dividing wall is gone. It is truly a revelation from God.

Now, what to do? Circumcision, dietary laws, observing days and feasts, Sabbath remembrances? No, faith in Jesus Christ. And, "lay up something for my return to Jerusalem", as he writes to all the churches. The offering to the apostle, to bring to the poor of Jerusalem, unites the gentile and the Jew in fact, in deed, just as the gospel going out from Jerusalem "to the uttermost parts of the earth" brought the hope of salvation out to a darkened world. Paul's eventual return to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" would complete the circle.

So the request in Galatians 2:10, "Remember the poor" from the pillars of Jerusalem, and Paul's "eager assent" were to show the Galatians where they fit into the picture - not with converting to Judaism, but as obedient gentiles to the gospel, and participants in that very gospel by helping the poor of Jerusalem. Look at how Paul writes chapter 7, how the Corinthians had repented and received Titus with "trembling obedience" (v14,15)! Now they were ready for Paul's message of sharing, in chapters 8 and 9. He is glad for their repentance, and now wants to see some fruits, some issue.

For confirmation, see Romans 15:25-31, and 1 Cor 16:1,2, which I'll quote in full, as it's relevant to this post: "Now about the collection for the saints, you are to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed." Paul consistently delivered one message, of the crucified and risen Christ, and the discipleship and obedience of all nations in his name. The gatherings of the offerings of the far-flung churches were central to this mission, and united believing Jew and Greek.

[OBW]

So let's show how Galatians fits into the whole of the administration/plan of God.

Ch 1: Paul spent the first chapter laying out that Christ was the gospel, not the law. He also provided his credentials to speak on the subject.

Ch 2: He continues his standing among the apostles by telling of his acceptance by the other apostles, and his stature to even put Peter in his place for duplicity.

Cn 3 & 4: Paul lays out how salvation is because of faith in the works of Christ and not because of our own works of any kind. This carries on through both chapters.

Ch 5: Paul states that we are free and to not allow themselves to become enslaved. Without saying anything about all aspects of our freedom, this passage is talking about freedom from the ritual, dietary, etc., laws of Judaism. Then he turns to living by the Spirit, providing both negative and positive evidence.

Ch 6: Helping each other when temptations arise. Doing good, living in the new creation.

Within most of this, Paul makes reference to the reasons that we can stand strong. For example, he notes that he is crucified with Christ. The implication is not to encourage the Galatians to work at becoming crucified with Christ, but to understand that it is the truth and that they can rely on that as a means to succeed. As Peter would put it, to recognize that we have what it takes for life and Godliness.

The point of the letter was not to provide a bunch of spiritual things they needed to work at, but a bunch of spiritual truths that they could rely on to live and follow in the manner Christ desired.

Short enough? (I thought that the overview of the book would be worth the extra words.)

One the whole, my observation is that the inner-life teachings are too engaged in dealing with the spiritual and too disengaged from dealing with life and Godliness

[OBW]

And Christians engaged in life and Godliness as image-bearers of God is a good description of "God's economy."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Within most of this, Paul makes reference to the reasons that we can stand strong. For example, he notes that he is crucified with Christ. The implication is not to encourage the Galatians to work at becoming crucified with Christ, but to understand that it is the truth and that they can rely on that as a means to succeed. As Peter would put it, to recognize that we have what it takes for life and Godliness.

Although this seems different from my post, at least in emphasis, they run on parallel tracks. The gentiles have by faith been given everything they need, if they would just believe the truth of the gospel. There is no need to judge one another if their works are "empty and joyless" or "filled with the indwelling Christ." Simply believe, and obey. The truth is the truth, irrespective of your current status, whether you subjectively lay hold or not. (because of sin, we should never judge ourselves as having attained, or others as lesser - "most Christians don't see"...)

I'd like to tell a short story to illustrate my point. Jesus told them, "Wait in Jerusalem for the coming power" (Acts 1:4-8), and it says they waited, praying day and night for this (1:14; 2:1). Now, if they didn't yet have the power, how could 120 people pray together for 10 days? If you heard of a gathering of 120 people all together praying day and night, wouldn't you say they were filled with the Holy Spirit? But the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out! But what did they have? They had the command. They were not empty. The command also has power. So if God tells you to do something, don't stress if you are "doing it with Christ" or not. Just do what God's word says. It is very plain. The "inner life" will follow. The command is in black-and-white.

Don't put the cart in front of the horse. If you focus on the cart, you will be led astray by your feelings, and those who'd manipulate you based on your feelings. Haven't we seen this played out in full?

(The above is my attempt to say 'amen' to OBW's post.)

[OBW]

One of the more troublesome things in Galatians to me is that Paul says Christ becomes of no effect to them if they put their trust in works of the flesh. But I believe that this is being sent to people who first believed in Christ, then were hoodwinked into following after Jewish rituals. So the question is whether Paul really means that Christ is of no effect (as in some kind of losing, or almost losing of salvation) or is he saying that their continued life has ceased to follow on according to Christ and the Spirit, and become stagnant because they have put their daily trust in those rituals.

I know that someone will suggest that doing the kinds of "works" that even Christ directly commands is included in these works of the flesh, but I do not agree. This is about the befuddlement brought on by the Judaizers, not by obeying the commands of Christ. And Paul's words about being crucified with Christ, and living "in Him" (among other things) is not to direct them to chase after this experientially (though they will experience it), but to move on like it is true — BECAUSE IT IS.