Witness Lee's economy

[cityonahill]

God's economy according to Lee, as we all know is:

"God’s economy is His plan to dispense Himself into His chosen and redeemed people as their life, their life supply, and their everything in order to gain a corporate expression of Himself, consummating for eternity in the New Jerusalem. This divine economy is the subject of the Bible, the meaning of human life, and the desire of God’s heart.

Most people, including many Christians, are unfamiliar with the application of the word economy in relation to God. Economy is the anglicized form of the Greek word oikonomia, which occurs throughout the New Testament (1 Timothy 1:4; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2; 3:9; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Colossians 1:25)."


This concept invented by Lee's word games deviates from the main message of the New Testament which is Christ.(anyone who tells you there is another main message of the NT teaches the doctrine of demons...) god'seconomy.org goes as far as to say that many Christians are unfimiliar with this teaching. If this was the central theme of the NT, then why didn't Paul and others speak of divine-dispensing and all the other WL terms of "proper" Christian living according to God's economy???...

It is interesting to me that when one in the LC is backed into a corner they always reply with "God's economy" rhetoric to justify anything (including one publication, ministry of the age,...)This is their means to make complicated that which is not complicated!

Just as Martin L. apparently "recovered" justification by faith, Lee has apparently recovered "God's economy"...Let's examine this further:

Justification by Faith is simple to understand: it's clearly in the bible and fits perfectly into the context of the passage it is found.(unlike God's economy where Lee needed to alter the context to define it) The church of the middle ages did not encourage believers to read and study for themselves . Rather, they spoon-fed everything to the saints and told them they had done all the work for them. There was no need for personal revelation...
What ML found was not an abstract, hard to understand truth that was kept hidden until his age. Rather, passages like Romans 1:17 became his battlecry as he sought to reform the corrupt controlling church he was apart of... "The Just shall live by faith"-simple as that. He did not expound on this concept as WL has done with his economy theology. Rather it is the pure and simple word of God that the New Testament plainly taught! Martin Luther did not bring the church into a New age of ministry; nor was he a minister of an age. He simply brought the corruption of controlling doctrines and leaders into the open by bringing them back to the central teaching of the NT New Covenant age, which is that we are saved by grace through faith! Not quite as complex, selfish, and insignificant as "divine dispensing..."

We are still in that New covenant age today and God's economy is not the main teaching of the NT nor does it provide answers to all those questions listed on god'seconomy.org!!!

let's examine a passage Lee quotes for confirming his "economy" doctrine:
1 Timothy 1:4

1 Timothy 1:4-This passage fits best into the whole context of verses 3-11...
"God's work" or "economy" found in 1:4 is a small part of Paul charging Timothy to oppose false teachers. They are characterized as teaching false doctrine, building up endless stories based on obscure passages and genealogies,(alot like Lee's economy...) using talk that was meaningless(alot like Lee's terminology that he invented), wanting to be teachers of OT law, teaching ascetic practices,...and so on...There is no mention here of the "way" or of "divine dispensing" or anything else. Lee's interpretaion of 1:4 is merely a foothold for him to wedge his controlling and false doctrine into the NT.(even claiming it is the central theme of the NT!)

We can easily see that Lee's economy has no biblical fidelity, or historical orthodoxy, when compared to that of Martin Luther's works of faith and grace.

Let's get real for a second: Anyone can find a random word in the NT, use their imagination to create a theology around it and connect the dots to claim it is THE theme of the NT!

Saints!!! Don't be decieved!!!

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by cityonahill

What ML found was not an abstract, hard to understand truth that was kept hidden until his age. Rather, passages like Romans 1:17 became his battlecry as he sought to reform the corrupt controlling church he was apart of... "The Just shall live by faith"-simple as that. He did not expound on this concept as WL has done with his economy theology. Rather it is the pure and simple word of God that the New Testament plainly taught!

Let's get real for a second: Anyone can find a random word in the NT, use their imagination to create a theology around it and connect the dots to claim it is THE theme of the NT!

Following the concept you have posted, when Brother Witness Lee taught the following he was charged of being heretical wherein he was just repeating what the Bible is saying:

The Son is the Father
Isaiah 9:6: “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

The Son and the Father are One
This is the clear word of Scripture: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).

The Last Adam Became a Life-giving Spirit
First Corinthians 15:45 states: “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.”

The Lord (the Son) is the Spirit
In 2 Corinthians 3:17 we read: “And the Lord is the Spirit.”
In other version: "And the Lord is the Holy Spirit."

God's Economy
1Timothy 1:3-4 says: Even as I exhorted you... to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God's economy, which is in faith.

Was not Brother Witness Lee just echoing what the Bible is saying, as what Brother Martin Luther did?

[cityonahill]

Paul,

You have brought up things that need to be discussed in another thread regarding other Lee teachings. This is only regarding God's economy.

In regards to God's economy, I'm dissapointed that after all the information I have given you, your only response is to repeat 1 Timothy 1:4.
Just because you can show me one passage that carries the phrase "God's economy" (even though some would translate it God's work...) doesn't explain or even defend Witness Lee's advanced economy theology that is found on god'seconomy.org


The truth is that his theology cannot be explained biblically without manipulating the original context. You said Lee just repeated the simple word as ML did with his justification through faith. wrong!
Paul, if Lee was merely repeating the word of God,(as you claim) where did he find "divine dispensing, processed triune God, consummate divine multiplication,...and the list goes on and on!

When Paul said in 1 Timothy not to "teach differently" he obviously wasn't talking about divine dispensing. If he was he would have said so.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by cityonahill

Paul,

You have brought up things that need to be discussed in another thread regarding other Lee teachings. This is only regarding God's economy.

In regards to God's economy, I'm dissapointed that after all the information I have given you, your only response is to repeat 1 Timothy 1:4.
Just because you can show me one passage that carries the phrase "God's economy" (even though some would translate it God's work...) doesn't explain or even defend Witness Lee's advanced economy theology that is found on god'seconomy.org


The truth is that his theology cannot be explained biblically without manipulating the original context. You said Lee just repeated the simple word as ML did with his justification through faith. wrong!
Paul, if Lee was merely repeating the word of God,(as you claim) where did he find "divine dispensing, processed triune God, consummate divine multiplication,...and the list goes on and on!

When Paul said in 1 Timothy not to "teach differently" he obviously wasn't talking about divine dispensing. If he was he would have said so.

Ephesians 1:10 and 3:9 are verses where you can find the word "economy" in addition to 1Timothy 1:4.

Likewise, the "economy of God" is further explained --

Or, plan. The Greek word, oikonomia, means house law, household management or administration, and derivatively, administrative dispensation, plan, economy. The economy that God, according to His desire, planned and purposed in Himself is to head up all things in Christ at the fullness of the times. This is accomplished through the dispensing of the abundant life supply of the Triune God as the life factor into all the members of the church that they may rise up from the death situation and be attached to the Body.

The Greek word means household law, implying distribution (the base of this word is of the same origin as that for pasture in John 10:9, implying a distribution of the pasture to the flock). It denotes a household management, a household administration, a household government, and, derivatively, a dispensation, a plan, or an economy for administration (distribution); hence, it is also a household economy. God's economy in faith is His household economy, His household administration (cf. note 101 in Eph. 1; Eph. 3:9), which is to dispense Himself in Christ into His chosen people that He may have a house to express Himself, which house is the church (3:15), the Body of Christ. The apostle's ministry was centered on this economy of God (Col. 1:25; 1 Cor. 9:17), whereas the different teachings of the dissenting ones were used by God's enemy to distract His people from this economy. In the administration and shepherding of a local church, this divine economy must be made fully clear to the saints.

In the first chapter of this book the apostle Paul presented God's economy in opposition to different teachings. God's economy is in faith (v. 4), whereas the different teachings are based on the principle of the law and centered on the law (vv. 7-10). Hence, faith is versus the law, as dealt with in Gal. 3 (vv. 2, 5, 23-25). Any teaching that is based on the principle of the law and centered on the law is unhealthy (v. 10). Only God's economy, which is in faith, in opposition to the teachings that are based on the principle of the law and centered on the law, is healthy and can make it possible for people to believe on Christ unto eternal life (v. 16) and to thus participate in God's eternal plan, God's economy, which is in faith. This is the gospel of glory with which the blessed God entrusted the apostle Paul (v. 11). If anyone thrusts away such faith and a good conscience, regarding the faith he becomes shipwrecked on a deep sea (v. 19).

[cityonahill]

Paul,

I understand what the Greek word means and I've already read WL's definition...

I'm asking how is he justified in expounding and redifining this "economy" as much as he has. Most scholars would debate that economy is not the most accurate translation for the word. Witness Lee presents it as gospel.

It appears to me that you can only repeat meaningless terminology that needs an explanation only Lee can give. The bible condemns this kind of thinking.
Just as the Roman Catholic church skewed everything and controlled information. Witness Lee does this same with teachings like this.

At the end of the day, you know as well as me that WL has twisted the original concept of these passages just like so many other false teachers before him. The passages you give me that use "economy" fit into a context that has nothing to do with what Lee teaches. Lee has to bend over backwards to form his "economy theology." he does not take the proper exegetical approach in interpreting scripture because he simply makes up his own context everytime!

[cityonahill]

Also,

when Paul charges some not to teach differently than God's economy he wasn't referring to Lee's redefinition of the word. Rather, He was refering to a much simpler concept which is what he taught "everywhere in every church": Christto be saved by grace through faith and being a steward of God's gifts is his economy. It is true that we are stewards of what he gives us and his body functions as a family. however, that doesn't say to me that "divine dispensing, consummate divine multiplication", and other nonsense are the main theme of the bible and are the "way"!!!!

that's rediculous Paul! How convienient for Lee to make up this "economy" theology as a means to control you Paul! May your Lee blinders be removed and your mind be renewed in Christ Jesus!

[Paul Miletus]

cityonahill, since you know well what the local church meant by the "economy of God", could you please tell us your understanding regarding this "economy of God"? What is this "economy of God" all about? I would presume you will support your answer from the Scriptures.

Many thanks.

[cityonahill]

Sorry Paul, but I can't support an economy theology from the scriptures because there is no scriptural basis to support it. All you can go on is Lee's definition.
(I"m not saying the word "economy" Oikonomia isn't in your bible)
Rather, I'm saying Lee basically reads the whole bible through that word!

*since you've asked(even though you have provided no scriptural support for your belief...you can only regurgitate Lee terminology), I personally(along with most scholars and christians) believe that the word "oikonomia" is quite controversial and not generally excepted in amongst mainstream scholars. That is why other versions of scripture don't say "economy"...
The reason for this debate (even though most don't debate it...only Lee) is that a century after Paul's letters were written, many copies were made. Some differences between the originals and the copies crept up and the early church leaders held a council to determine the final outcome (council of Nicea 325A.D.) They determined to let the original copies from the first century A.D. be the only ones used because of the obvious timing and accuracy issues. Somehow, witness Lee needed a foothold to wedge in his false teachings, and the rejected copy of Ephesians is where he found it! The original Greek text uses the word "Koinonia" or community rather than economy. As you look at the context, "koinonia" is easy to understand and needs no further teaching from Lee.
Furthermore, the term "economy" is such a general and vague term that it was so easy for Lee to redefine it as he saw fit. It was just the vague word he needed to seal the deal with his plan of THE "way", the theme of the whole bible, and so on...

I'm currently doing my degree in NT studies and came accross this info in a commentary by Gordon Fee, F.F. Bruce, and T.L. Johnson,...it is refreshing to read a commentary written by more than one man.

there are some blogs and arcticles you can see for yourself that "koinonia" is the greek word that was in the original copy of Ephesians...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinonia

Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 352

Robinson, “Communion; Fellowship,” pp. 752-753 in Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

http://inchristkoinonia.blogspot.com...uilding-3.html

[cityonahill]

Also,

since I've presented a bible based defense for "koinonia" it must be noted that Martin L. did not have to dig through controversial texts that were rejected by the church for centuries in order to find "justification by faith" It was right there already in context plain as day!
and for you to even compare Lee's economy with ML's Justification is not a very solid stance.

Another thing, If lee "stands on the shoulders" of so many people, and it's ok for him to critique their teaching, then who can stand on his shoulders and critique his teachings?

*Don't answer that Paul because if your honest, you may be labelled "divisive"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

God's Economy
1Timothy 1:3-4 says: Even as I exhorted you... to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God's economy, which is in faith.

Was not Brother Witness Lee just echoing what the Bible is saying, as what Brother Martin Luther did?

Actually, no.

Paul, where were you when this very topic was resurrected on the BARM last Fall? When Matt brought the old theological and general debates forward? I took the time to read some of that old worn tome of Lee's, The Economy of God (TEOG), and I found it amazingly wanting. As cityonahill has already pointed out, Lee picked one of many meanings for the Greek word that he said was simply economy. And he spent paragraph after paragraph using logic error after logic error to get to the conclusion that God's economy is just dispensing.

Besides that, he was so forceful that Paul was saying to teach God's economy. Actually, the verse does not say that at all. It says to not teach different things. Those different things produced questionings. But the teachings that were not "different" produced God's economy, or administration, etc. The teachings were not the administration or economy. But the result of the teachings was a Christian life and Christian community that operated God's way, that displayed the fullness of God.

As cityonahill has further pointed out, Lee's simplistic definition of "God's economy" is not supported by scripture. But it is Lee's filter for the rest of scripture and is therefore one of the main sources of his errors. And there are many.

[Paul Miletus]

I believe a lot of the posters in this thread had totally misunderstood "The Economy of God" that is being taught in the local church. In order to make it simple for all of us to study and understand, I believe posting the following schematic diagram in this regard is much profitable before we continue our discussion.



Sorry, it seems I can't upload the schematic diagram...

Perhaps, we can review the following statements how "The Economy of God" holds in the Word of God:

THE DIVINE ECONOMY

1. Writing to the Ephesians, Paul speaks of "the economy of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in Christ" as a comprehensive way of speaking of the whole endeavor of God with mankind in time.
   
   
2. The divine economy is the account of Christ in His move in and with mankind. Everything that occurs in God's economy occurs as an action by Christ or as an experience that Christ undergoes. All of God's economy is centered on Christ, and apart from Christ there is no economy of God.
   
   
3. Redemption is a necessary item in the divine economy, and we can never underestimate its value; but redemption is only the base for the greater issue of Christ's death, which is the release of His divine life for the full and organic salvation of those who believe in Him.
   
   
4. In the physical realm, His body lay quietly in the sealed tomb, and the old creation, it seemed, rested in sabbath; but in the divine and mystical realm, God's economy moved onward, and Christ in Hades rejoiced in His coming resurrection, victoriously declaring the triumphs wrought by His death.
   
   
5. Through resurrection Christ has become the life-giving Spirit, not in the sense that He ceases to be the Son or in the sense that He ceases to be distinct from the Spirit, but in the sense that what He was before His death and resurrection is now borne and communicated through the Spirit.
   
   
6. Christ's judicial redemption serves as a base for the organic salvation that He is now carrying out among His believers. It is the organic salvation that ultimately completes and fulfills the divine economy, for this aspect of God's salvation, which operates throught he dispensing of the divine life into the believers, transforms God's elect into His corporate expression for eternity.
   
7. God's marvelous economy operates upon persons who have not yet fully arrived, and hence, there has been, since its inception, the element of the old creation in the church. Because of this, the church has suffered decline, degradation, and even devastation throughout the centuries.
   
   
8. Because of the degradation that has set in, Christ has intensified His ministry as the Spirit. In this last stage of intensification, He produces the overcomers who rise up to build up His Body for the accomplishment of the divine economy.
   
   
9. God's economy is fully the history of Christ in His relationship with humankind. As the embodiment of the Triune God, He brings divinity into humanity and ultimately uplifts humanity into the divine realm. This He does through the dispensing of Himself as life into the believers, which life regnerates, transforms, and glorifies them.

Please let us know which item above you do not agree with The Economy of God and specify your reason with supporting Scriptures.

[cityonahill]

Paul,

Have you even read the other posts???
If you had, you would know that Lee's economy has already been addressed.

Once again you have not addressed even one issue that I presented with Lee's economy...I already have addressed "God's economy" based on scripture. Your refusal to interact with other arguments presented by myself and others show me and everyone else that you are here to have a one-sided conversation...that's not something I'm willing to do.

Go read my previous post and bring up something relevant to this thread. You are proving my point when I said all the LC saints can do is repeat "economy rhetoric" when backed into a corner...

I have presented my argument for "koinonia"...based on biblical text. What are your thoughts...(not Lee's thoughts)

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by cityonahill

Paul,

Have you even read the other posts???
If you had, you would know that Lee's economy has already been addressed.

Once again you have not addressed even one issue that I presented with Lee's economy...I already have addressed "God's economy" based on scripture. Your refusal to interact with other arguments presented by myself and others show me and everyone else that you are here to have a one-sided conversation...that's not something I'm willing to do.

Go read my previous post and bring up something relevant to this thread. You are proving my point when I said all the LC saints can do is repeat "economy rhetoric" when backed into a corner...

I have presented my argument for "koinonia"...based on biblical text. What are your thoughts...(not Lee's thoughts)

I believe since Brother Witness Lee authored "The Economy of God" you have stripped yourself to appreciate the orthodoxy of "The Economy of God". We must all act as the true Bereans of the Bible.

Again, if you would not want to react on my earlier post, I will narrate with my own words the beauty of The Divine Economy which uplifts only the Lord Jesus Christ and His Body to gain His chosen people until at the consummation of the age in the New Jerusalem.

The Economy of God
In past eternity, God created the heavens and the earth and all things including man. Unfortunately, man fell by disobeying God by eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil making his body as flesh, his soul as self, and his spirit deadened. In totality, man was alienated from God. This part can be called as "The Old Creation".

Christ in the stage of His incarnation
For God to pursue His heart desire in dispensing Himself to man, God gave His Son Jesus through incarnation and tabernacled among man. In Jesus human living, He brought God to man. Because of man's fall, he was in bondage in sin and death; therefore, the Lord Jesus died on the cross to conquer sin and death and liberate man. While the Lord Jesus was in His tomb, after three days, He resurrected from the dead; and finally conquered sin (by His precious blood) and death (by His resurrection). This part and onward can be called as "The New Creation".

Christ in the stage of His inclusion
In His resurrection He became a life-giving Spirit. He also became the Head and Lord overall. After His resurrection, He descended from heaven as the all-inclusive Spirit and able to breathe in His disciples the Holy Spirit. Now, these disciples (including all of us today who have believed in the Lord Jesus) partook life and divine nature from God; thereby making us children of God. The believers in Christ are no longer individuals but rather has now became a corporate body, a new man, the church, which is the Body of Christ. By this process, the Lord Jesus Christ brought God into man.

Christ in the stage of His intensification
The church is God's elect composed of all believers in Christ (past, present, and future) which is now the expression and representative of the Lord Jesus Christ here on earth. As the time goes by, the church was degraded due to apostasy and the Lord's recovery is much needed, especially the "present truth" or the "up-to-date truth" to address the recovery of the Church by the Lord Jesus Himself. The Lord's recovery is to bring back the pattern of the church according to God's will which is gaining His Body through building the Body of Christ.

In the last days, the church will experience deeper degradation; and therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ as the life-giving Spirit will be intensified sevenfold to deal with the church greater degradation. The Lord Jesus Christ is now identified as the "sevenfold intensified Spirit" in the book of Revelation to produce the "overcomers" for the Body of Christ. As soon as the the "overcomers" is produced, then Christ's return is imminent. Christ's return is determined once the church has produced the "overcomers". At the consummation of the age, the church will become the Bride and there will be a marriage betwen the Bride (church) and the Bridegroom (Christ). After the Millenium Kingdom, the New Jerusalem which is the ultimate consummation, will come out from the new heaven. The New Jerusalem is a mingling of the Triune God and all the believers in Christ (past, present, and future).


With the above explanation, "The Divine Economy" is actually a schematic diagram outlaying God's heart desire to gain His people to be His habitation and God as man's habitation. I believe you are not in agreement with "The Divine Economy" not because it is being taught in the Bible, but because it was authored and taught by Brother Witness Lee. This is so sad! You are compromising the truth because of your "dislikes". This is not the way how the members of the Body of Christ must conduct its business.

[Suannehill]

This is still quoting Lee...just no quotation marks.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

This is still quoting Lee...just no quotation marks.

Really?

Do I now sound like Brother Witness Lee?

Sorry... I really wrote them by myself.

Thanks.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Really?

Do I now sound like Brother Witness Lee?

Sorry... I really wrote them by myself.

Thanks.

Did you notice how you didn't mention the word "love" once in that whole thing?

Strange, isn't it?
Exactly like Lee.

Schematic diagram?
Really, Paul?
Is that what your faith has become?
A schematic diagram?

Pitiful!
Poor, poor Local Church!
All the best doctrines but nearly no appreciation of or way to apprehend the realities those doctrines are supposed to describe.

Buy the Lord's eye salve and drop your way of having the riches.
Please, we beg you.

Talk about what's sad....

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by cityonahill

If this was the central theme of the NT, then why didn't Paul and others speak of divine-dispensing and all the other WL terms of "proper" Christian living according to God's economy???...

While it is true that Paul (the one in the Bible) spoke of God's "oikonomia," it is not a concept that one should need the "interpreted word" in order to understand. In fact, Paul said he was commissioned, as a steward to:

make plain the oikonomia of the mystery (Eph 3:9)

Make plain. The teaching that we need the "interpreted word" etc... to understand "God's economy" basically implies that Paul failed in his stewardship because he failed to "make it plain" what the oikonomia was.

Witness Lee is needed because Paul failed in his stewardship. That's the implication, isn't it?


Peter

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Make plain. The teaching that we need the "interpreted word" etc... to understand "God's economy" basically implies that Paul failed in his stewardship because he failed to "make it plain" what the oikonomia was.

Witness Lee is needed because Paul failed in his stewardship. That's the implication, isn't it?

Not necessarily.

I don't think it's necessarily a fair argument to say that the preserved books of the Bible are the entirety of Paul's efforts at "making plain" and I think it would be a little superstitous to say that what we've got is definitely all that is needed for it to be absolutely plain. The verse in 1 Timothy had the wrong Greek word for hundreds of years that became "godly edifying" in the KJV! And part of Paul's ministry was obviously spoken and I never got the benefit of any of that.

At the end of the day, though, I have to admit that I didn't get it from Lee's doctrines. I got it by praying over the verses that Lee said were important but it came straight from the Lord through Paul's writings.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Not necessarily.

I don't think it's necessarily a fair argument to say that the preserved books of the Bible are the entirety of Paul's efforts at "making plain" and I think it would be a little superstitous to say that what we've got is definitely all that is needed for it to be absolutely plain. The verse in 1 Timothy had the wrong Greek word for hundreds of years that became "godly edifying" in the KJV! And part of Paul's ministry was obviously spoken and I never got the benefit of any of that.

At the end of the day, though, I have to admit that I didn't get it from Lee's doctrines. I got it by praying over the verses that Lee said were important but it came straight from the Lord through Paul's writings.

I don't disagree with the idea that there is something called "God's economy" in the New Testament. But Lee's definition of that goes much further, I think, than what the NT states on the matter. I think the NT did "make plain" what the economy of the mystery is. And it includes, as a central piece of it, love, as you have pointed out. All I'm saying is that Lee's "interpreted word" version of "God's economy" is one which differs from the NT in which Paul did, in fact, "make plain" what it is.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I don't disagree with the idea that there is something called "God's economy" in the New Testament. But Lee's definition of that goes much further, I think, than what the NT states on the matter. I think the NT did "make plain" what the economy of the mystery is. And it includes, as a central piece of it, love, as you have pointed out. All I'm saying is that Lee's "interpreted word" version of "God's economy" is one which differs from the NT in which Paul did, in fact, "make plain" what it is.

Ah.

Well, I had the realization while I was still among them that many were actively exchanging the reality of God's economy for the doctrine of God's economy. Meaning, they turned memorizing and celebrating Lee's teachings concerning God's dispensation into a substitute for really participating in the actual flow from the Throne. I thought it was curious back then but didn't see it as a trend or a natural outcome as I eventually came to recognize.

I could never understand the excitement over things like the great revelation about a sevenfold-intensified Spirit while the reality of the present One was being neglected. I mean, I can get excited about the seven Spirits too, but, really,

1Cr 13:2 And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

[OBW]

[Paul,

Don’t freak out about quoting someone else. This is really to you.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Make plain. The teaching that we need the "interpreted word" etc... to understand "God's economy" basically implies that Paul failed in his stewardship because he failed to "make it plain" what the oikonomia was.

Witness Lee is needed because Paul failed in his stewardship. That's the implication, isn't it?

While I would disagree that we do not need to interpret the Word at times, I fully agree that whatever that interpretation is, it must be consistent with the Word.

And Lee's interpretation leaves much to be desired. His interpretation of 1 Tim 3-4 is, on its face, inconsistent with the very scriptures he sought to interpret. How we managed to let that get past our good minds back then is beyond me now.

Sort of like your list of 9 items that you called the "Divine Economy." a few posts back. The first item has a verse in it. But beyond that fact that the next 8 probably have some linkage to some verse(s), the insertion of "economy" into the discussion is strictly Lee's doing. It is not there. It was a series of statements about scripturally factual things that Lee, now having us impressed by his ability to point to Biblical truths, will simply say is about God's economy. No support.

But it must be true. Lee said it.

No Paul. You may not have quoted Lee verbatim, but you merely paraphrased what he said. You have devoted important years of your life learning what Lee said at the expense of truly understanding scripture. All of those pages of illogic that carried us from scripture to Lee's theology had little substantive use of scripture in them. So reading and learning Lee's theology is to basically ignore scripture. Yes, many are quoted, but they are not relevant and are not really used.

For example. In your 9 points the only scriptural mention of economy is in the first point. The other 8 are fluff. Each one makes mention of economy. But this is because Lee was busy saying that it was what it was. He did not establish that it was so from scripture. He just said it was so. Each of the scriptures that support the first 6 items (I won’t discuss the last 2 because they are almost purely Lee’s speculation and not actually scripture) are valid concerning the actual issue discussed. But there is no mention of economy in them. There is nothing about them that says that they are simply about dispensing. Lee said that. Not the scripture.

If you started with his definition of the “economy of God” those things might be shoehorned in as relevant. But given the poor translation job that “simply” ignored the better and broader meanings of the word (over which Lee waved his oracle hand and it was so) you might be able to make Lee’s leaps. But to readers of the scripture (as opposed to readers of Lee) this is not evident.

Worse than that, it is not reasonable. No amount of talk about “spiritual discernment” turns black into white. We must start with the actual scripture, not the one Lee reinvents.

[Cal]

If "economy" is meant to mean "the way God accomplishes his purpose" then, of course, he operates according to his economy. Because of course God is going to always operate according to the way he operates. He's always going to do things the way he does them.

So using the word "economy" over and over ad nauseum issues in a tautology, that is, the repetition of a factoid as if it were profound that is true by definition. Most people know God does things the way he always does them. They don't need the word "economy" repeated over and over when talking about God's ways.

In fact, I think one can reach a false conclusion from the economy talk in the LCs--that is that God does things according to his "economy" in the LCs, but not according to his "economy" in other groups. For example, if God blesses the community church movement, LCers seem to believe that that blessing is not "according to God's economy," but is some sort of throw-away blessing that God does out of having pity on the poor dummies in "Christianity" or something, but really isn't the real deal.

[cityonahill]

Igzy, I reckon you just hit the nail on the head! All the other logical conclusions others and myself have brought forward have yielded no logical response. Why? We are dealing with circular reasoning here.

1)I bring up "God's economy"
2)I'm answered with every Lee teaching Paul assumes I might disagree with...
3)I bring God's economy up again more thorough...
4)I'm answered with accusations that I'm just against everything of Lee(how sad that I've missed out...)

It appears to me Igzy has rightly noted that:
"If "economy" is meant to mean "the way God accomplishes his purpose" then, of course, he operates according to his economy. Because of course God is going to always operate according to the way he operates. He's always going to do things the way he does them.

So using the word "economy" over and over ad nauseum issues in a tautology, that is, the repetition of a factoid as if it were profound that is true by definition. Most people know God does things the way he always does them. They don't need the word "economy" repeated over and over when talking about God's ways. "

Once again, by twisting the text of the NT to create your own context for a particular passage (or specific word in Lee's case) it is easy to make complicated that which was not complicated.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by cityonahill

Igzy, I reckon you just hit the nail on the head! All the other logical conclusions others and myself have brought forward have yielded no logical response. Why? We are dealing with circular reasoning here.

1)I bring up "God's economy"
2)I'm answered with every Lee teaching Paul assumes I might disagree with...
3)I bring God's economy up again more thorough...
4)I'm answered with accusations that I'm just against everything of Lee(how sad that I've missed out...)

It appears to me Igzy has rightly noted that:
"If "economy" is meant to mean "the way God accomplishes his purpose" then, of course, he operates according to his economy. Because of course God is going to always operate according to the way he operates. He's always going to do things the way he does them.

So using the word "economy" over and over ad nauseum issues in a tautology, that is, the repetition of a factoid as if it were profound that is true by definition. Most people know God does things the way he always does them. They don't need the word "economy" repeated over and over when talking about God's ways. "

Once again, by twisting the text of the NT to create your own context for a particular passage (or specific word in Lee's case) it is easy to make complicated that which was not complicated.

If only the LC faithful could understand this truth. Of course it's God's economy. It's the way He does things. The scripture should not be reanalyzed according to some peculiar understanding of economy. The whole of scripture should be seen as standing as it is and the term "economy fits it exactly as it is. Lee's reanalysis essentially negates and rewrites scripture.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by OBW

If only the LC faithful could understand this truth. Of course it's God's economy. It's the way He does things. The scripture should not be reanalyzed according to some peculiar understanding of economy. The whole of scripture should be seen as standing as it is and the term "economy fits it exactly as it is. Lee's reanalysis essentially negates and rewrites scripture.

Of course it God's economy. Its the way He does things. This is a good start to my understanding of TEOG and if you can accept this obvious point, let me take it a step further.

How is God doing this? I would say the rest of the New Testament shows He is doing this through His people, not just the LC, but you and me. The gospel is preached through us, the ministry is carried out by us and the church is being built by us, according to our yielding to the leading of the Holy Spirit operating in each of us. So the way God is doing this (His economy, if you will), is by and through those who have been born again into His kingdom.

So please tell me how this is rewriting scripture?

Your thoughts?

Shawn

[OBW]

Shawn,

For you I will break my silence relative to this forum.

My point is not that God’s economy is not seen throughout the NT, but that it is not defined here in 1 Tim 1 and then given that definition, the rest of the NT is to be read.

1 Tim 1 does not define God’s economy. It simply makes a reference to it as being the result of the fullness of correct teaching and following that teaching. Paul does not say to teach God’s economy. He says it will result from the correct teachings. The wrong teachings result in questionings. The right ones in God’s economy. The actual right teachings are not mentioned, except to say that they are not ones that center on myths and endless genealogies.

But Lee did it backwards. He found the reference to God’s economy — economy being a transliteration of the actual Greek word, but only one of several definitions, and not even the prominent one. He then said that “economy” was simply the right definition. He then took it one step further and said that economy is simply dispensing. And he had to shame us into accepting his definition by suggesting that something he was not about to do for us would prove it. He said that a thorough analysis of scripture would show that he was correct. But he provided zero of that analysis. And he knew that few, if any, would even try to start such an analysis. And since we all want to be on the side of a thorough analysis of scripture, we bought it. But it doesn’t exist. Then Lee further said that Paul said to teach it. But Paul did not. The verse does not say that.

I do not go so far as to say that God does not dispense Himself into man, if those are terms you want to use for spiritual facts that all of Christianity accepts. But that is not the whole of “Gods’ economy.” It encompasses all of the teachings of scripture. It includes believing and following. It is about seeking him rather than worrying about the poor who we always have with us, and also doing this for the least among you. It is about holding to His teachings, which included loving your neighbor as yourself, denying yourself and taking up your cross, teaching the righteousness of the law (as expanded by Jesus in Matt 5) and serving rather than lording over others. This only touches the tip of the fullness of the teachings of which Paul spoke.

This is the fullness of God’s economy. It is much more than God dispensing himself into man, even though without first receiving that dispensing, all the other teachings are useless. But just because it comes first does not make it the only thing. That is to return to the start over and over. Paul exhorted us to take hold of what is within us (the Spirit) and walk according to it. He didn’t say to wait for more Spirit. He said to walk.

So Lee’s minimalist economy = dispensing is rewriting scripture. And Lee’s claim that Paul said in 1 Tim 1 to teach God’s economy is simply incorrect.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by OBW

Shawn,


This is the fullness of God’s economy. It is much more than God dispensing himself into man, even though without first receiving that dispensing, all the other teachings are useless. But just because it comes first does not make it the only thing. That is to return to the start over and over. Paul exhorted us to take hold of what is within us (the Spirit) and walk according to it. He didn’t say to wait for more Spirit. He said to walk.

So Lee’s minimalist economy = dispensing is rewriting scripture. And Lee’s claim that Paul said in 1 Tim 1 to teach God’s economy is simply incorrect.

Thanks OBW, for putting up with long suffering my repeating my understanding as expressed in the previous forum.

I would like to suggest that from the quote I took from your point below:

"even though without first receiving that dispensing, all the other teachings are useless."

everything in the New Testament is also useless.

I would completely agree that the reference in I Timothy is not a concrete lead in to his teaching, but the word economy does give a good description of His purpose.

I would also like to agree that this is not the only teaching from the NT. There are many teachings that are "glossed over," because, "all you need is the dispensing." Unfortunately, it has become such an emphasis that young ones will never get a good foundation of the teachings of the bible, due to the over simplification of this one concept, negating the many other godly admonitions taught in the bible.

I think over the months (years?) I am getting a better grasp of how great a deveation can happen with the gross emphasis of one point, negating the rest of the precious truths of the bible.

Much grace to you!

Shawn

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by OBW

Shawn,


This is the fullness of God’s economy. It is much more than God dispensing himself into man, even though without first receiving that dispensing, all the other teachings are useless. But just because it comes first does not make it the only thing. That is to return to the start over and over. Paul exhorted us to take hold of what is within us (the Spirit) and walk according to it. He didn’t say to wait for more Spirit. He said to walk.

So Lee’s minimalist economy = dispensing is rewriting scripture. And Lee’s claim that Paul said in 1 Tim 1 to teach God’s economy is simply incorrect.

Thanks OBW, for putting up with long suffering my repeating my understanding as expressed in the previous forum.

I would like to suggest that from the quote I took from your point below:

"even though without first receiving that dispensing, all the other teachings are useless."

I would ccomment that everything in the New Testament is also useless.

I would completely agree that the reference in I Timothy is not a concrete lead in to his teaching, but the word economy does give a good description of His purpose.

I would also like to agree that this is not the only teaching from the NT. There are many teachings that are "glossed over," because, "all you need is the dispensing." Unfortunately, it has become such an emphasis that young ones will never get a good foundation of the teachings of the bible, due to the over simplification of this one concept, negating the many other godly admonitions taught in the bible.

I think over the months (years?) I am getting a better grasp of how great a deveation can happen with the gross emphasis of one point, negating the rest of the precious truths of the bible.

Much grace to you!

Shawn

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What was the practical outcome of the teaching of "God's Economy" by Witness Lee? As I recall, it was a group of people shouting O Lord Jesus and pray-reading the Bible in a mindless way in order to "get God dispensed into their beings." Rational understanding of what they were doing was not required, indeed it was discouraged.

I posted this yesterday before I registered.

Dear brothers in Christ,
I don't see how running one of Witness Lee's teachings into the ground is accomplishing anything positive for the building up of the Body of Christ. I know you have your reasons, but be sure you have the Lord's presence before you continue this line of fellowship. Regardless of your lack of appreciation of this particular teaching (which is only one of countless rich teachings of WL), I personally, along with thousands of others, have been enlightened and helped to realize that God's has an intention to dispense (yes, dispense) Himself into His chosen people in order to have an corporate expression of Himself. This is God's economy (per WL). This is not aberrant or heretical, any more than saying: "God is Triune" (which word, by the way, in not found in the Bible, but most genuine Christians use it freely).

From the very beginning of the Bible in Genesis, when God placed man before the tree of life (Gen 2:9), to the very end of the Bible in Revelation (Rev. 21:1-2) where the tree of life is revealed, God clearly shows us through the scripture that He has a primary intention - to fill man with Himself as Life so that this man could fully express Him in a corporate way as the church, His Body (Eph 1:4-5;3:17-19). If not, why did our beloved Lord say in the gospel of John, "I am the way, the truth and the Life" and "I am the bread of Life", and "I am the water of Life", and "I am the light of Life". Why did He say "He who eats me, even he shall live because of me" (John 6:57). Was He not trying to help us to see we should receive Him as Life? Is this not dispensing? Why does using a slightly less than traditional expression make it any less true?

Eat Jesus! Enjoy Him! Fulfill His purpose! If this teaching is not of God, it will come to naught. If you oppose it, and it is from God, then you are stumbling your brothers for nothing.

A genuine believer in Christ

and further...

Below is a direct quote from Wuest Word Studies from the Greek New Testament - Volume II - page 28, first paragraph...

"The word "edifying" is the translation of oikodomian, "edification." The correct reading is oikonomian, made up of oikos, "house", and nomos, "law", the compound word meaning the affairs of a household. The word here (1 Tim 1:4) refers to the scheme or order of God's salvation as devised and administered by God, the method of God's salvation in the life of a believing sinner."

Also, Alfred Marshall's Interlinear, NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English - translates the Greek word Oikonomian directly as STEWARDSHIP -

Wikipedia defines STEWARDSHIP as an ethic that embodies responsible planning and management of resources. The concept of stewardship has been applied in diverse realms, including with respect to environment, economics, health, property, information, and religion, and is linked to the concept of sustainability. Historically, stewardship was the responsibility given to household servants to bring food and drinks to a castle dining hall. The term was then expanded to indicate a household employee's responsibility for managing household or domestic affairs.

All of this sounds very much like what Witness Lee taught. He always said "I stand on the shoulders of others." So to even call the heading of this discussion "Witness Lee's economy" is misleading.

- a genuine believer

[UntoHim]

Sorry, this last post was in the moderation que waiting for approval. For some reason it did not appear in the que until today, although it appears that it was posted on 8/30/2011.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Dear brothers in Christ,
I don't see how running one of Witness Lee's teachings into the ground is accomplishing anything positive for the building up of the Body of Christ. I know you have your reasons, but be sure you have the Lord's presence before you continue this line of fellowship. Regardless of your lack of appreciation of this particular teaching (which is only one of countless rich teachings of WL), I personally, along with thousands of others, have been enlightened and helped to realize that God's has an intention to dispense (yes, dispense) Himself into His chosen people in order to have an corporate expression of Himself. This is God's economy (per WL). This is not aberrant or heretical, any more than saying: "God is Triune" (which word, by the way, in not found in the Bible, but most genuine Christians use it freely).

From the very beginning of the Bible in Genesis, when God placed man before the tree of life (Gen 2:9), to the very end of the Bible in Revelation (Rev. 21:1-2) where the tree of life is revealed, God clearly shows us through the scripture that He has a primary intention - to fill man with Himself as Life so that this man could fully express Him in a corporate way as the church, His Body (Eph 1:4-5;3:17-19). If not, why did our beloved Lord say in the gospel of John, "I am the way, the truth and the Life" and "I am the bread of Life", and "I am the water of Life", and "I am the light of Life". Why did He say "He who eats me, even he shall live because of me" (John 6:57). Was He not trying to help us to see we should receive Him as Life? Is this not dispensing? Why does using a slightly less than traditional expression make it any less true?

Eat Jesus! Enjoy Him! Fulfill His purpose! If this teaching is not of God, it will come to naught. If you oppose it, and it is from God, then you are stumbling your brothers for nothing.

A genuine believer in Christ

I don't know what "teaching of WL" we are running into the ground. I assume from the context that you are referring to the Teaching of God's Economy.

I would suggest you look at the thread "Elvis has left the building" starting with Post #126. We just had a lively discussion on the book of Job. If you read that thread you will see that I presented an understanding of Job that is very much in line with your presentation here of "God's Economy". You will also see that several posters took umbrage at what was written and presented many challenges, counter arguments, and critiques. Ultimately the referee stepped in and called a timeout. However, the discussion was concluded in the thread Lee and the Book of Job.

Here is what is interesting, you think that WL taught God's economy, but from the quotes of his Life Study of Job, one of the last trainings given in the Life Study of the Bible series, his teaching will surprise you. I would hope you would follow this in order, rather than jumping to see what WL taught. All I can say is that before you think that this forum is beating up on this teaching, try read these few posts and make your own conclusion.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Wikipedia defines STEWARDSHIP as an ethic that embodies responsible planning and management of resources. The concept of stewardship has been applied in diverse realms, including with respect to environment, economics, health, property, information, and religion, and is linked to the concept of sustainability. Historically, stewardship was the responsibility given to household servants to bring food and drinks to a castle dining hall. The term was then expanded to indicate a household employee's responsibility for managing household or domestic affairs.

All of this sounds very much like what Witness Lee taught. He always said "I stand on the shoulders of others." So to even call the heading of this discussion "Witness Lee's economy" is misleading.

- a genuine believer

If you look at Jesus' parables, He taught a lot about stewardship, and not a lot about dispensing.

Stewardship is the responsibility of the steward, not the Master. The Master dispenses; then the steward has an obligation to manage independently.

Witness Lee turned the stewardship of the disciples into "masticating the processed and consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead."

The parables of Jesus were much less focused on the dispensing of God than on the stewardship of the believers/disciples. The "responsible planning and management of resources" which Wikipedia references, Jesus also referred to: but with regard to the slaves/servants, not the Master. Different focus entirely.

[ZNPaaneah]

Jesus said I am the vine and my father is the husbandman. A farmer's job is to water the plants when they need it. Which could certainly be considered "dispensing". The farmer's job includes applying fertilizer as needed, weed killer, and medicine to combat various diseases that plants get.

Second, the economy of the husbandman who has a vineyard is completely wrapped up in and focused on the vine. Everything that he does is for that vine to produce fruit.

So I don't know where this generalization that Jesus talked more about stewardship than about dispensing comes from?

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't know where this generalization that Jesus talked more about stewardship than about dispensing comes from?

I simply counted. Every time Jesus said "I am the vine and you are the branches; abide in Me" I called that a dispensing speaking.

Or the parable about the wise virgins and the foolish virgins. Dispensing.

But when he said, "the servant said, my Master delays, and he began to eat and to drink and to beat his fellow servants..." that seemed like a stewardship teaching.

The same word in Greek translates into both stewardship and economy. "Oikonomios"... so you have to be careful what you are looking for, because it may distort what you find. Like a man hunting deer: every bush suddenly seems to sprout antlers.

[ZNPaaneah]

I would think that study might be of interest to the LRC. Have you shared it with them?

But instead of numbers, I think it would be more interesting to take every parable about "dispensing" or "stewardship" and then look at them as a group to see what are the different aspects of the teaching that are being presented. A cube has 8 sides, perhaps like a crystal each of these truths has a number of different sides.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A cube has 8 sides, perhaps like a crystal each of these truths has a number of different sides.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would think that study might be of interest to the LRC. Have you shared it with them?

I have tried in a number of venues, both online and in person. Online I was panned as a wanna-be Lee, trying to draw others after myself. My ambitions in the LCs had been thwarted, I was told; now my bitter and dark heart was alternately slandering and praising the apostle.

I replied to them that they had a publication called "Affirmation and Critique", in which their authors would both affirm and critique different aspects of christian teachings. Why get so alarmed when someone did the same to them?

I got no reply to that.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think it would be more interesting to take every parable about "dispensing" or "stewardship" and then look at them as a group to see what are the different aspects of the teaching that are being presented. A cube has 8 sides, perhaps like a crystal each of these truths has a number of different sides.

The problem with a strict classification and quantification scheme is that it is not always easy to do. Like I said, we are subjective and we come to the Bible with our biases, and thus we "interpret" the lessons of Jesus according to what we think He is "supposed" to be saying. Plus many teachings seem to be on other things entirely, like redemption.

But simply look at where Jesus talks about what we are to do. This requires obedience to a command, not merely pray-reading or calling on the Lord's name. Not just imbibing the processed and consummated Triune God until we become the same as He is.

Lee's "economy" is an ideological template which, if we are not careful, inhibits further investigation and unveiling. When Jesus was talking about "oiknonomia" in the parables, it was translated as "stewardship" or "management" (Luke 16 1-3); compare how much ink was spilled by LSM on Luke 16 compared to Paul's use of "oikonomia" in Ephesians 1.

Jesus in Luke 16 and elsewhere was stressing the responsibility of the believers, not God's eternal plan. I don't think Lee was wrong per se (there clearly is some dispensing going on here) but his conceptual scheme is rather unbalanced. Lee tried to do systematic theology without being very systematic.

Yes; there are indeed a number of sides, or aspects, here. The "rich ministry" of Lee does have a part of the conversation. But LSM's ministry is not quite as rich as they maintain, and by presenting God's economy as some all-encompassing teaching they don't allow themselves the benefit of other balancing views.

Thus, they end up with "One Publication", and "One Trumpet", which can only blow "God's Economy"; this I find to be a quite incomplete and stilted view.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at Jesus' parables, He taught a lot about stewardship, and not a lot about dispensing.
Stewardship is the responsibility of the steward, not the Master. The Master dispenses; then the steward has an obligation to manage independently.
Witness Lee turned the stewardship of the disciples into "masticating the processed and consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead."
The parables of Jesus were much less focused on the dispensing of God than on the stewardship of the believers/disciples. The "responsible planning and management of resources" which Wikipedia references, Jesus also referred to: but with regard to the slaves/servants, not the Master. Different focus entirely.

“He taught a lot about stewardship and not a lot about dispensing”. Good point. Then let’s look at the earliest days of the Church as recorded for us in Acts. Was the emphasis on “dispensing” or on the stewardship of the apostles and others? There was teaching and preaching, baptizing, meeting the practical needs of the saints, sharing of food and goods, healing the sick - all within the realm of stewardship.

Then when we consider the whole of the writings of the apostles, I think one must come to the very same conclusion, although the emphasis on stewardship is more fully developed and expanded. By this time the apostles were relating to the saints how our stewardship to God and each other was “fueled” by certain motivations and expectations. Just as Christ served us and even suffered and died for us (the ultimate stewardship) so we are to serve each other, and even give our life if necessary. Then there is the expectation of a reward (Jesus’ parables often reflected this as well). The general theme of the scripture writing apostles is clear – we are to be good and faithful stewards in this life, then the reward of the Master will come in the next. Again, the motivation comes from knowing and appreciating what Christ did for us, the expectation is for a reward in the future.

Remember the song “we have found the way to live by Christ, pray his Word and call his Name” (I think this is quoted right). No doubt this slogan was based upon Witness Lee’s “dispensing of the triune, processed God” teaching. The problem is that the emphasis of the Lord Jesus and the apostles was not so much to live BY Christ as it was to live FOR Christ. Living by Christ may very well produce “Godmen” (says Lee), but living for Christ will produce men of God (says the historical record of church history). This is a hard thing to grasp for those of us who sat at the feet of Witness Lee for years and decades. To live “by” Christ seemed to be what fulfilled God’s purpose for our lives and that of Church…and for a moment it seemed we were succeeding. But as it turns out we were entangled within a “self-fulfilling prophesy”.

Witness Lee prophesied to us that if we have God “dispensed” into our being we would be building the Church and produce the bride that would bring Christ back. He said it, so it must be so. We (or at least the older/mature ones) should have asked him to show us proof – show us that you have done this somewhere. Instead Witness Lee took those Americans to Taiwan to show them off to the Taiwan saints. It should have been the other way around – he should have taken those Americans to Taiwan so that they could see for themselves what people look and act like after they have received the “dispensing”.

We now know by that time Taiwan was full of division and many were discouraged and disgruntled, Witness Lee’s teachings and leadership had not produced people who live by Christ. Furthermore, many were damaged because Witness Lee had got them to give up their life savings for ill conceived business ventures. They found out that the only dispensing that was going on was that of their hard earned money getting dispensed into somebody else’s bank account.

I have not read a lot of Watchmen Nee in many years, but I don’t recall him teaching anything like “the processed triune God or that God was “dispensing” himself into us – at least not with emphasis that Witness Lee put on these things. I may be wrong about this, so if anybody has proof that he did then let us all know and I’ll stand corrected.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Just as Christ served us and even suffered and died for us (the ultimate stewardship) so we are to serve each other, and even give our life if necessary.

I don't find "God's eternal economy" to be incorrect per se, but it is not as encompassing nor compelling as the statement you made here: "we are to serve each other".

Change economy to dispensation and everyone is happy. However, the original Greek is Oikonomia. Deal with it.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Change economy to dispensation and everyone is happy. However, the original Greek is Oikonomia. Deal with it.

The problem is not on whether the Greek word οἰκονομία is translated to economy or dispensation, the first problem is interpreting what it could have meant to the original writers/receivers in the first century, and and the second is what it might mean for us today. The big problem for Witness Lee is that he was totally unqualified to know the first (since he never bothered to become formally educated in biblical Greek) and because of this it makes his interpretations quite suspect to say the least.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Remember the song “we have found the way to live by Christ, pray his Word and call his Name” (I think this is quoted right). No doubt this slogan was based upon Witness Lee’s “dispensing of the triune, processed God” teaching. The problem is that the emphasis of the Lord Jesus and the apostles was not so much to live BY Christ as it was to live FOR Christ. Living by Christ may very well produce “Godmen” (says Lee), but living for Christ will produce men of God (says the historical record of church history). This is a hard thing to grasp for those of us who sat at the feet of Witness Lee for years and decades. To live “by” Christ seemed to be what fulfilled God’s purpose for our lives and that of Church…and for a moment it seemed we were succeeding. But as it turns out we were entangled within a “self-fulfilling prophesy”.

The Local Church song I quoted above was probably written about 40 years ago. Let's fast forward to the here and now...2012. After these many decades, what has become of the people who have practiced (supposedly) "the way to live by Christ"? They have prayed his Word. They have called his Name. They have prayed and sang the words of Witness Lee. They have earnestly sought for "the dispensing of the triune God". I can't seem to find this in the Bible, but the old adage "the proof is in the pudding" comes to mind.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Change economy to dispensation and everyone is happy. However, the original Greek is Oikonomia. Deal with it.

The problem isn't the word "economy." The problem is God's economy encompasses much more than Lee said it did.

Lee dwelt mostly technical details of God's economy. He was like a guy who wants to only talk about how his smartphone works, but neglects that it is actually a tool to do some good. Lee neglected the good the tool was created to do, because he was so caught up with the tool itself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Change economy to dispensation and everyone is happy. However, the original Greek is Oikonomia. Deal with it.

Everyone is happy?!?

WL and the Blendeds pride themselves with their recondite theology. Take away their esoteric terminology, like the phrase "God's New Testament Economy," and replace it with the more generic "God's plan," and the Recovery will start to loose their sense of worth. How can they continue to degrade poor, poor Christianity for not knowing their high-peak language?

But, of course, you knew that already.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Take away their esoteric terminology, like the phrase "God's New Testament Economy," and replace it with the more generic "God's plan," and the Recovery will start to loose their sense of worth. How can they continue to degrade poor, poor Christianity for not knowing their high-peak language?
But, of course, you knew that already.

You know Ohio, the inmagery you post gives me is something along the lines of....
http://youtu.be/YWyCCJ6B2WE

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

You know Ohio, the inmagery you post gives me is something along the lines of....

At least Dorothy got it right. . .

"You're a very bad man!"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Change economy to dispensation and everyone is happy. However, the original Greek is Oikonomia. Deal with it.

How about changing economy to stewardship? Jesus taught this using the Greek word Oikonomia in His parables (e.g. Luke 16), but this was ignored by the Ministry of the Age, perhaps because it wasn't seen to be in the central lane of God's economy.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

From the very beginning of the Bible in Genesis, when God placed man before the tree of life (Gen 2:9), to the very end of the Bible in Revelation (Rev. 21:1-2) where the tree of life is revealed, God clearly shows us through the scripture that He has a primary intention - to fill man with Himself as Life so that this man could fully express Him in a corporate way as the church, His Body (Eph 1:4-5;3:17-19). If not, why did our beloved Lord say in the gospel of John, "I am the way, the truth and the Life" and "I am the bread of Life", and "I am the water of Life", and "I am the light of Life". Why did He say "He who eats me, even he shall live because of me" (John 6:57). Was He not trying to help us to see we should receive Him as Life? Is this not dispensing? Why does using a slightly less than traditional expression make it any less true?

Eat Jesus! Enjoy Him! Fulfill His purpose! If this teaching is not of God, it will come to naught. If you oppose it, and it is from God, then you are stumbling your brothers for nothing.

A genuine believer in Christ

The problem is that Lee took a "slightly less than traditional expression" and made it a template to over-ride the plain words of scripture in front of us. If Jesus' teaching on Oikonomia, for example, which stressed individual responsibility (note that the unjust steward has "his" Oikonomia taken away in Luke 16:2) runs afoul of Lee's extended riff on Paul's "God's economy" then Jesus' teaching must fall by the wayside. To Lee, Jesus' parable simply didn't exist.

So we got "God's economy" rammed down our throats, literally (think of all the chanting of Lee's outlines and bullet points), while Jesus' teachings on personal stewardship, using the exact same Greek word, were ignored.

And to add insult to injury, if you didn't fanatically parrot this stuff, and actually tried to read the Bible for yourself, then you were castigated as being dangerously independent. You weren't "one" with the teaching of God's current apostle.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

The problem is that Lee took a "slightly less than traditional expression" and made it a template to over-ride the plain words of scripture in front of us. If Jesus' teaching on Oikonomia, for example, which stressed individual responsibility (note that the unjust steward has "his" Oikonomia taken away in Luke 16:2) runs afoul of Lee's extended riff on Paul's "God's economy" then Jesus' teaching must fall by the wayside. To Lee, Jesus' parable simply didn't exist.

So we got "God's economy" rammed down our throats, literally (think of all the chanting of Lee's outlines and bullet points), while Jesus' teachings on personal stewardship, using the exact same Greek word, were ignored.

And to add insult to injury, if you didn't fanatically parrot this stuff, and actually tried to read the Bible for yourself, then you were castigated as being dangerously independent. You weren't "one" with the teaching of God's current apostle.

Bro Aron, you come out here and knock 'em outtda park ... on 3 threads so far.

Great to hear from you.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

And to add insult to injury, if you didn't fanatically parrot this stuff, and actually tried to read the Bible for yourself, then you were castigated as being dangerously independent.

When one as Ohio indicated in one of his posts, when one is removed from fellowship for speaking from the Bible instead of the ministry, the argument can be made the local churches are no longer local churches, but ministry churches due to the fact fellowship is based on a man and his ministry which Living Stream Ministry publishes.

[Lisbon]

In my 41 years in the lc, I don't think I ever heard the whole of 1 Tim 3 or 4. They always stopped at "which is God's economy." The last four words are critical and it is insane that they are so often omitted. I'm not at all saying this is typical of lcs but it is for Texas. I went to Chicago in around 74 when we marched around Moody with a "gospel march." That's my contact with GLA.

Paul said, "as I urged you when going in to Macedonia that you charge certain ones not to teach myths and endless genealogies that render confusion rather than God's economy which is in faith. To leave out that smal phrase "which is in faith" is deceit. In a good sense, faith is a foundation of our belief and to obviously omit the word indicates deceit. The next verse is part of the same thing for it says that the end of the charge is wow!! love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and genuine faith. I don't think anyone has ever come to the proper translation of oikonomia but we h ave spent nearly half a century talking about. The items just following, ie love, good conscience, genuine faith, we probably don't know that much but there is some light. The speaking about economy just mainly lead to the formation of another of the thousands of Christian sects which cerainly lcs have done.

Lisbon

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

In my 41 years in the lc, I don't think I ever heard the whole of 1 Tim 3 or 4. They always stopped at "which is God's economy." The last four words are critical and it is insane that they are so often omitted. I'm not at all saying this is typical of lcs but it is for Texas. I went to Chicago in around 74 when we marched around Moody with a "gospel march." That's my contact with GLA.

Paul said, "as I urged you when going in to Macedonia that you charge certain ones not to teach myths and endless genealogies that render confusion rather than God's economy which is in faith. To leave out that small phrase "which is in faith" is deceit. In a good sense, faith is a foundation of our belief and to obviously omit the word indicates deceit. The next verse is part of the same thing for it says that the end of the charge is wow!! love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and genuine faith. I don't think anyone has ever come to the proper translation of oikonomia but we have spent nearly half a century talking about. The items just following, ie love, good conscience, genuine faith, we probably don't know that much but there is some light. The speaking about economy just mainly lead to the formation of another of the thousands of Christian sects which certainly lcs have done.

Lisbon

Great post, Lisbon.

If I could add just a little ...

Cannot all of Witness Lee's brief summations of church history, with the lineage of Ministers Of The Age (MOTA's) from Martin Luther until now, be considered nothing more than "myths and endless genealogies."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great post, Lisbon.

If I could add just a little ...

Cannot all of Witness Lee's brief summations of church history, with the lineage of Ministers Of The Age (MOTA's) from Martin Luther until now, be considered nothing more than "myths and endless genealogies."

YES ... and you nailed it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Cannot all of Witness Lee's brief summations of church history... be considered nothing more than "myths and endless genealogies..."

...and which, as Paul put it, resulted in "confusion" rather than, ahem, certain things such as love, faith, and a good conscience?

[bearbear]

Our locality had a practice where everyone was forced to share from HWMR every Lord's day. Some days I really had nothing to share and I would terribly butcher my testimony. To save my testimony and make up for the embarrassment, I would end my lines with catch phrases like "God's economy" which would automatically trigger a hearty Amen. I was part of the system and looking back at myself I am ashamed and I'm sorry before you all too. I think that's part of why I was motivated to leave because I couldn't live with myself anymore.

I also felt frustrated for serving young people only to have them ushered into meetings at the end of Summer School of Truth pressuring them to attend the FTTA. I felt my service there was condoning this message and my conscience was bothering me quite a bit. Looking back I am glad to be freed from all of this and now I can be true to myself and God.

[Lisbon]

Maybe this is way out in left field but I really like Pride and Prejudice. Fairly early in the novel Lady Catherine is grilling Miss Elizabeth about her upbringing. When the Lady learned that Elizabeth's family had not been tutored in drawing, she remarked "your mother should have taken you to the masters in the spring." Elizabeth answered, "my mother would not have minded but my father hates town." So strange. Mr Bennet must truly be a recluse or the like if he hates town. He can take a village but not even a town. Of course he wouldn't like London. So strange, really. As you may well know from the rest of the book and other 18th century writings town unabiguously meant London. So today we have many translators of two thousand year old stories in Greek who quite certainly haven't ready Homer or other classics of that era telling us like Lee that oikonomia means.... For many years I would like to mention to WL that we had a word economy which had to do with sports, air planes, real estate, cars, and what have you, not anything the least bit similar to his new teaching. If you haven't read God'sNew Testament Economy, that book will really choke you if you're anything like me.

WL was out to sell his snake oil and he chose a few dozen men like BP and RK. The amount of Bible he trashed to prove his new doctrine surely must be not that different from Joseph Smith. We were thoroughly drugged to accept his mountain of false teaching through the years.

Lisbon

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

WL was out to sell his snake oil

Witness Lee thought he had us hoodwinked into believing he was speaking from the authority of God. So he could say and do anything and we were to just accept it as such.

That was his snake oil.

[Freedom]

"God's Economy" has never really meant anything to me. It seems like it's just become a catch-all phrase that sounds important. I hear things like "such and such a teaching is not God's economy" or "they aren't following God's economy". What it all boils down to is the term means absolutely nothing and it isn't even used in a way to mean what WL said it means.

Someone could just as easily say something like "they aren't following the minsitry" instead of "they aren't following God's economy". I guess it sounds more important if they say "God's Ecomony". Since it isn't even clear what the term means, it seems like it also serves the purpose of keeping anyone from arguing with statements like that, because how can people address or argue a statement that has no concrete meaning?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Since it isn't even clear what the term means, it seems like it also serves the purpose of keeping anyone from arguing with statements like that, because how can people address or argue a statement that has no concrete meaning?

God's Economy sounds like God is being economic ... as in being tight or chinchy.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Since it isn't even clear what the term means, it seems like it also serves the purpose of keeping anyone from arguing with statements like that, because how can people address or argue a statement that has no concrete meaning?

This is really true. And when they wrap their errors in spiritual adjectives — everything has a reference to the "all-inclusive Christ" or something like that — it seems impossible to argue with it because you can't argue with the all-inclusive Christ.

But if you remove the gratuitous spirituality, you are left with their error. Suddenly it stands out like a sore thumb.

It is also a little like misusing the parable of the leaven. When Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven was like leaven that was mixed into a measure of flour, the leaven was the kingdom. It changed the world around it. But Lee reversed the meanings and said that the kingdom was the flour and the leaven was something bad mixed into it that changed it into something bad (like poor, pitiful Christianity). Yet if you turn the metaphor back to the way Jesus spoke it, Lee used that same concept over and over. Take a measure of bad theology, throw in some irrelevant verses that get everyone shouting "amen," coupled with some spiritual platitudes like "the all-inclusive Christ" and you can turn bad theology into high peaks manure and sell it to the LRC masses.

And they eat it and come back for more.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

I believe a lot of the posters in this thread had totally misunderstood "The Economy of God" that is being taught in the local church. In order to make it simple for all of us to study and understand ... we can review the following statements how "The Economy of God" holds in the Word of God:

THE DIVINE ECONOMY

1. Writing to the Ephesians, Paul speaks of "the economy of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in Christ" as a comprehensive way of speaking of the whole endeavor of God with mankind in time.
   
   
2. The divine economy is the account of Christ in His move in and with mankind. Everything that occurs in God's economy occurs as an action by Christ or as an experience that Christ undergoes. All of God's economy is centered on Christ, and apart from Christ there is no economy of God. ...
   
   
3. Through resurrection Christ has become the life-giving Spirit, not in the sense that He ceases to be the Son or in the sense that He ceases to be distinct from the Spirit, but in the sense that what He was before His death and resurrection is now borne and communicated through the Spirit.
   
   
4. Christ's judicial redemption serves as a base for the organic salvation that He is now carrying out among His believers. It is the organic salvation that ultimately completes and fulfills the divine economy, for this aspect of God's salvation, which operates through he dispensing of the divine life into the believers, transforms God's elect into His corporate expression for eternity.
   
   
5. God's marvelous economy operates upon persons who have not yet fully arrived, and hence, there has been, since its inception, the element of the old creation in the church. Because of this, the church has suffered decline, degradation, and even devastation throughout the centuries.
   
   
6. Because of the degradation that has set in, Christ has intensified His ministry as the Spirit. In this last stage of intensification, He produces the overcomers who rise up to build up His Body for the accomplishment of the divine economy. ...

Please let us know which item above you do not agree with The Economy of God and specify your reason with supporting Scriptures.

A couple of things bother me: first is that the word is elsewhere translated as "stewardship" and God's economy according to Witness Lee seems to miss this. The quote above calls Paul's "economy of God" in Ephesians "a comprehensive way of speaking of the whole endeavor of God with mankind in time", but for every NT verse on the "dispensing endeavor of God" you could find four verses on "God's stewardship requirements on mankind" if you wanted (and Lee apparently didn't). I've covered this elsewhere so I won't belabor it.

Second, is the "intensification" part. The beginning of Revelation (1:4,5) has a greeting from Him who was and is and is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before the throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful Witness and firstborn from the dead, etc.

Now, Lee has to deal with the number seven here so he adds "intensification" to his already processed Jesus. But how come Jesus Christ is walking among the seven lampstands, while simultaneously John also is presenting the seven spirits which are before the throne? Lee says that John is simultaneously presenting Jesus as both, here?

And are the seven accompanying lampstands also one, sevenfold intensified lampstand, or is it really seven lampstands? Are the seven churches really one, intensified church, or actually seven churches?

Lee produced an interpretation when convenient to his theology and then abandoned it immediately when it was no longer convenient. "Seven" meant "one, intensified", where convenient, but "seven" actually meant "seven" everywhere else, even in the same passage. Got it?

Ooooh! Suddenly it all makes sense! Thank You God for sending Your oracle! Now it is all so clear to me! (sarcasm alert)

We were sold a paint-by-numbers theology as though it were a Rembrandt. Lisbon is right: you have to be drugged to be continually imbibing this stuff, and telling each other about having arrived at the high peak truths.

"Mystery hid from ages, now revealed by Lee
Crystallized and consummated, all for sale to we
Thank you, may we all have more economy?"

[Ohio]

I know lots of Lee's teachings stretch beyond the limits of scripture, and not to dispute others' input, but I would like to add something. Inside Lee's teaching there was a nugget of truth concerning God dispensing Himself into us as grace, peace, love, and so many other precious things which our Heavenly Father has for His children.

I have experienced this before, and am now passing through a fiery trial which is shaking every thing I know. In a way, I am clinging to the hope that this ordeal opens my heart for God to dispense more of Himself into me. And cling I must, since all my faults and failures often cloud the view that I am in the hands of loving Father.

Concerning the dispensing, called God's economy in the LRC, lots of fluff has surrounded this thought. Yet I have long wondered why God allows His children to endure pain and suffering. Read what David passed thru in the Psalms. What is His goal? What does He accomplish? One might say that He trains us, but I know that when the difficulties pass, we often just revert back to who we are. That's my story. It has always seemed to me that the concept of dispensing explained all my dilemmas. In a word, God wants to add Himself to us. All things work for our good, but perhaps the hardships help us the most. I do know that in the midst of trials, sin is almost absent in my heart, and that happens even without resisting it.

This may make little sense to our natural mind since we already have God, and that it seems we have already been blessed with every heavenly blessing in Christ. But Paul said, until "Christ is formed in us," and other expressions. Something happens within our inner being during trials, when things we love are being burnt up, and we can cling to nothing else but our hope, which is by faith is in God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I know lots of Lee's teachings stretch beyond the limits of scripture, and not to dispute others' input, I would like to add something. Inside Lee's teaching there was a nugget of truth concerning God dispensing Himself into us as grace, peace, love, and so many other precious things which our Heavenly Father has for His children.

Dispensing = We have no hope without divine intervention.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

God's Economy sounds like God is being economic ... as in being tight or chinchy.

Like grades of gasoline. You get regular, hi-test, and economy. Or when you are flying on Jet Blue: you get executive class, business class or economy.

The trick is to sell people the economy grade and make them think it's luxury. Just use the words "rich" or "high peak" in the advertising.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

If you haven't read God'sNew Testament Economy, that book will really choke you if you're anything like me.

Ironically I recieved God's New Testament Economy as my high school graduation present nearly 28 years ago.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

A couple of things bother me: first is that the word is elsewhere translated as "stewardship" and God's economy according to Witness Lee seems to miss this. ......

Second, is the "intensification" part.....

Lee produced an interpretation when convenient to his theology and then abandoned it immediately when it was no longer convenient. "Seven" meant "one, intensified", where convenient, but "seven" actually meant "seven" everywhere else, even in the same passage. Got it?

Ooooh! Suddenly it all makes sense! Thank You God for sending Your oracle! Now it is all so clear to me! (sarcasm alert)

We were sold a paint-by-numbers theology as though it were a Rembrandt. Lisbon is right: you have to be drugged to be continually imbibing this stuff, and telling each other about having arrived at the high peak truths.

"Mystery hid from ages, now revealed by Lee
Crystallized and consummated, all for sale to we
Thank you, may we all have more economy?"

You made me laugh Aaron!!

God's economy is not even complicated!

Blessings and showers of God's Perfect Love on everyone, me included :-)
Carol

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

. . . God dispensing Himself into us as grace, peace, love, and so many other precious things which our Heavenly Father has for His children.

We have all experienced it. And so have most of those mooing cows that we now wander among in Christianity.

The problem is that God does this because he does it, not because we learn a better doctrine and are now qualified to have an experience of it.

In fact, sometimes I think that so many of the things that we "experienced" were less real than the reality that Christ was in us whether we knew it or not. That Christ acted on our behalf whether we had Lee's teaching on it or not. Those that pray are seeking and knocking. They will find and will have the door opened. It will not be special for those who have high-peak theology.

In short, I think that our "experience" — at least while in the LRC — was more a matter of working ourselves up with the expectation that this was what it was all about. We sang and declared that feelings were nothing, yet we point to our feelings as the thing we miss. In fact, I think it is the feelings of getting more than what we got that we are pointing back to now. Not saying we aren't or weren't getting anything. But we were busy pointing at something else.

The feelings are our leeks and garlic of Egypt. Those multitudes marching across the desert didn't have a lot of feeling after a while. Oh, they enjoyed the rush of being saved through the Red Sea. But that obviously didn't last. They were grumbling for the leeks and garlic of Egypt in no time. Yet God was with them in the desert, not back in Egypt with the leeks and garlic.

They sing "the feelings do not change the fact . . ." but the surely let their feelings rule the day. If they don't feel it, they don't believe it. So they have to feel something. I just wonder what it is they feel.

Let's face it, those in the LRC are not getting more grace, peace, love, etc., than those elsewhere. That is yet another myth we need to tear down. Things were not superior there. We were taught how to feel superior there. We were taught how to get a feeling and call it something special.

Mean time, God is busy giving grace, peace, and love to many more than the few in the LRC. Our experience of God's peace, grace and love may have been real (at least in a sense), but the thing that we called God's peace, grace, and love may not be the thing that we actually got from God. In the LRC is was accompanied by something we pointed to as some special sense. We got excited about it. Maybe, just maybe, that was not actually the peace, grace, and love. Not saying we didn't get any. But ths thing we point to may have been a misdirection.

For a group that is taught to think poorly of charismatic theology and practice, the LRC is very caught-up in having semi-charismatic experiences to keep them going. Find a way to remove enough of the sort of mob mentality that they get into in the meetings and it will wither. Unfortunately, it will mostly wither back to normality, but they will be experiencing a kind of withdrawal and be sure that they have been abandoned by God. (And the cry will go out, once again, for the leeks and garlic of the LRC.)