Kingdom Economy

The Greek word for the KJV, “household,” is oikonomia. Literally, it means the rule, or law, or order of the family/household: “How the family is run.” It is also exactly the same word from which we derive the English word “economy.”

God’s economy is based on the exchange of love and charis (gifts) in a family of relationships. It is not based upon money. Without functional relationships in which love and charis are exchanged, there is no kingdom economy, nor can there be.

In God’s economy, finances and material resources follow upon the exchange of love and charis.  Gift exchange in the family is the economy of God.  It is possible to have lots of finance and never touch God’s economy because the genuine relational infrastructure of love and gift exchange is absent. Rather, in its place are the mechanics of money and the strong arm of human determination to build something for God, even using “biblical principles of finance.”

The flow of finance is the logical fruit of an economy based on the exchange of love and charis. A lack of finance for legitimate kingdom efforts is not a lack of money. It is the fruit of a lack of love, and a lack of the understanding of the financial responsibilities of “one-anotherness” in a functional relational community. Love expressed has an economic element.

There are those today who think that a more “faithful” approach to the “stewardship” of money and finance, if overseen by “governmental apostles,” is somehow the magic key of the hour to open up untold kingdom opportunities in the present day. God’s economy is much more sublime than the “release of marketplace ministries,” as valuable as that may be. I submit to you that Calvary’s plow must go yet much deeper than that if we are to even approach a semblance of a  “kingdom economy.”

Everything . . . and I mean every practice, belief system, theology, value . . . every precious “conviction,” up to and including our right to be “right” in our views, must be on the table for radical reassessment and reconfiguration to Christ.

If we get the cart of spiritual money mechanics ahead of the horse of loved-based family economy, we will experience the logical end of that order of things: nothing.

Copyright 2011 Dr. Stephen R. Crosby Permission is granted to copy, forward, or distribute this article for non-commercial use only, as long as this copyright byline, in totality, is maintained in all duplications, copies, and link references.  For reprint permission for any commercial use, in any form of media, please contact

19 comments on “Kingdom Economy

    • Absolutely. It didn’t even exist as a concept until the 18th century, so whatever the Scriptures have to say about money has no bearing on capitalism and vice versa. Same thing for communism/socialism. God’s economy is a transcendent “other” that has material manifestation.

      I have written a book on exactly that point. I called the book, “wealth Transfer” to try to lure potential interest, from unlikely places. Most would not like what I have written there.

  1. I wonder if Christ had a problem with having to be ‘right’
    and if we are folloiwng him, are able to be as right as he was.
    Or do we think we can never come to maturity and be overcomers?

    Stephen I got your book, but didn’t read it ‘because’ of the title
    I thought you had converted to the ‘transfer of weath’ the dominionist/prosperity preachers preach.

  2. “Radical reassessment” indeed! I’m not sure that this type of economics you describe here existed much beyond the early Church. Not even sure if that model totally resembles what your saying here. Hmmmmm……very thought provoking.

    • Hi Jeanne, we can talk about it sometime. Part of the key to understanding is knowing that they (first century Mediterranean basin people, including Jews) did not define, nor express “love” the way we do. For us, it is an individual, subjective, and emotive feeling. It was none of those things for them. If we read our cultural sensitivities in to the scripture, we will always be wrong, and cause ourselves unnecessary interpretive and subjective grief and consternation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.