Examinig The Crucial Points of the Major Items of the Lord's Recovery Today

[Unsure]

From 2015's ITERO and one of the HWMRs:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8E...p=docslist_api

1: Does this document sum up all the major points of the "Recovery" view/ideology/whatever?
2: Is there anything in the outline or text that immediately stands out as questionable, or is a deeper analysis required?
3: Is there anything in here that is majorly hypocritical based on the experiences of the members of this forum?

Could I use this document as both an explanation to outsiders on what the LC claims to believe, and as a starting point for analyzing, deconstructing, and tearing down its questionable points?

[TLFisher]

I don't know, but I was just looking at Day 5 III. "In order to realize the recovery of the Lord for the carrying out of the economy of God, we must stay away from death and division:"

Well, it difficult when the brother promote division and do not do anything to discourage it. Consider a few common LC phrases that promote division:

"poor poor Christianity"
"Here in the recovery we have all the riches and Christianity has nothing"

I know there are more, but these were ones I typically heard in Puget Sound localities.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unsure

Could I use this document as both an explanation to outsiders on what the LC claims to believe, and as a starting point for analyzing, deconstructing, and tearing down its questionable points?

I clicked on that page, and at the top of the PDF there was a link under "More Actions" named "Report Abuse."

That's where you should start.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unsure

2: Is there anything in the outline or text that immediately stands out as questionable, or is a deeper analysis required?

Could I use this document as both an explanation to outsiders on what the LC claims to believe, and as a starting point for analyzing, deconstructing, and tearing down its questionable points?

Questionable: If the economy of God is Witness Lee's hermeneutical masterpiece, then why didn't Paul write, "Pay attention to the economy of God, which is God's dispensing Himself into humankind...", etc etc? Paul didn't say that, but WL does. From whence cometh the notion? From the whole Bible, you say?

Then why studiously ignore the teachings of Jesus, who also included the word 'oikonomia' in His parables, to mean "responsibility" and "obedience", i.e. stewardship? Why turn away from the teachings of Jesus in order to craft your formulation? WL tried systematic theology to the edges of his hermeneutic, then it vanished - systematic, hermeneutic, and Bible itself. It's almost as if when WL didn't teach something, it didn't exist - yet there it is, in black and white, printed in the pages of his beloved Bible.

Also questionable: why translate 'ekklesia' as "church" where it fits your meaning, and as "assembly" elsewhere? E.g. Acts 19:41, etc etc? Again, selective readings to fit your narrow understanding, which understanding you then declare not only to be universal, but the center of God's plan.

Maybe if WL had spent time in seminary, he wouldn't have come up with so many odd ideas. A little more guidance was in order.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unsure

From 2015's ITERO and one of the HWMRs:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8E...p=docslist_api

1: Does this document sum up all the major points of the "Recovery" view/ideology/whatever?
2: Is there anything in the outline or text that immediately stands out as questionable, or is a deeper analysis required?
3: Is there anything in here that is majorly hypocritical based on the experiences of the members of this forum?

Could I use this document as both an explanation to outsiders on what the LC claims to believe, and as a starting point for analyzing, deconstructing, and tearing down its questionable points?

When I read the document, the first point that I saw was "The Recovery of the Economy of God". That immediately raised a red flag in my mind. First of all, the LC would define "God's economy" as His dispensing. In other words, it is an activity that He is engaged in. So why does something that God is doing need to be recovered? Is His work insufficient? By this point alone, it would lead me to the preliminary conclusion that they are talking about something completely different than "God's economy" as it is found in the Bible. In 1 Tim 1:4 other versions don't use the word 'economy' but they do use words like work, stewardship, or administration. I just find the notion to be completely absurd that God's way of running things need to be 'recovered'.

The understanding that God has a special way of running things is actually a simple concept, I think that this is a basic understanding that all Christians have. The matter of what God is doing, is probably the bigger issue. With respect to this, I found the following point in the outline:
II God's economy was unveiled through the apostles, but because the believers lost the proper understanding of God's economy, there is the need for it to be recovered by the Lord:

So it seems that by this statement, what they are actually talking about when they say there is a need for God's economy to be 'recovered' is that an understanding of God's economy is what needs to be 'recovered'. It would have been nice if they had clarified this initially, because understanding what God is doing is completely different than the realization of the simple fact that God is someone engaged in administering things.

I don't think that a separation of these two facts was their intention at all. It would seem that they want to lead people to believe that the fact that God has an administration is only validated if people have a proper understanding of that administration. Of course, this is just my speculation about what they are saying here, but it seems that they really want to lead people into the notion that God is only able to do things so as long as people understand what He is doing (which we are told is understood exclusively by the LC).

I must wonder though, what do they really mean by an understanding of God's economy? Do they think that it means that they know how to pinpoint on a map where the Lord is 'moving' to? I'm certain that the implicit meaning of their statement is that they want to claim that they know exactly how God is administering things and that all other believers have lost that proper understanding. I don't think that even LCers would go so far as to claim that God is limited by our understanding of Him. The real issue is simply that they are trying to find ways to reinforce the supposed superiority of the LC. The main way that they do this is to take a simple concept (God's economy), then assign an esoteric meaning to it (which has only been interpreted by WL). If people buy into this, they are trapped by WL ministry, thinking that it is imperative for following the Lord.

[Lisbon]

In the early 90's KR found Athanasius' proclamation that God became man to make man God. Many times I sang the song written by WL "God's eternal economy is to make man the same as He in life and nature but not in the Godhead." That dispensing definition was one of the 70's. For a while the church was the economy of God and I feel that there was at least one other definition.

One of our forum has said that TAS actually wrote of the same subject before WL. Surely WL used God's economy, 1Cor 15:45, the processed and consumated Triune God, the intensified Spirit, and other hypes to keep us interested even as a good comedian does. We were deceived,I more than you, but we still have to believe as Jacob spoke late in life,"The God who shephered me all my life." Do you believe me, I still believe that in the face of all those years of deceit. I have visited my previous sect, I know a little of the RCC, and others, I doubt the LC is a lot worse in the long run than others. I'm still glad I'm out now for three years.

Lisbon

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I clicked on that page, and at the top of the PDF there was a link under "More Actions" named "Report Abuse."

That's where you should start.

Originally Posted by Lisbon

I doubt the LC is a lot worse in the long run than others. I'm still glad I'm out now for three years.

I agree.

After all these years of being out of the program, I still don't see serious problems with the interpretation of God's economy, His stewardship, His dispensing, His household administration, His plan, etc. All provide nuance into the interpretation of oikonomia.

There's lots of diversity of understanding out there folks, and I'm talking about inside the body of Christ. Pentecostals see tongues on every page, and Lee saw economy on every page. Every minister has his slant or angle to enhance his appeal. Some of this is spiritual, as in diversity of gifts, and some of it is just marketing. I still like to give Lee and Company the same latitude I would provide others.

What has always troubled me about Lee, however, was the abuse. Those whom Lee has quarantined over the years did little more than Report Abuse. Those who remained in the program have often become the bully he was. Their abuse of spiritual authority has damaged many a child of God. Brotherly love and natural affection for others was often sacrificed at the altar before Lee's throne. Like I said, that has always troubled me, and that's why I am still here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After all these years of being out of the program, I still don't see serious problems with the interpretation of God's economy, His stewardship, His dispensing, His household administration, His plan, etc. All provide nuance into the interpretation of oikonomia..

There aren't serious problems per se, but it wasn't presented to us as a provision of nuance into the interpretation of oikonomia. The ideas of stewardship weren't acknowledged... it was "just masticate the processed Triune God" etc etc. Jesus' parable on oikonomia didn't even exist in the God's economy of Lee. Or, where is the idea of responsibility? Gone. "Just eat God until you become God in life and nature." Come into meetings and shout at each other. Sing repetetively, especially the hymns of Lee. Pray-read, chant or declare, recite the footnotes, verses (you know, the special verses) and outlines. Then you'll become divine, or 'sonized'. This is the God's economy of Lee. Seriously flawed.

If it were merely a nuance I probably wouldn't have problems with it. Everybody has a view, and many of them add to the depth of our understanding. But Lee's view as a stand-alone, all-inclusive hermeneutic is like a finger-painting being held up as the finest Vermeer. Not even close.