Pray-Reading

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

ZNP, For all of your examples, I see exactly what I said. There are numerous places where as part of a prayer, passages were, in effect, recited back to God. This is the kind of praying of the word that I have seen with significant impact. Even simply repeating the "Lord's Prayer" is profound as part of a larger prayer. It fills in our poor prayers with at least generalities concerning the broad categories we were taught to pray. To pray for more than just kingdom stuff. To also pray for those "poor, pathetic" things about ourselves and our lives that Lee so despised.
But that is not the practice that was being defended by anything written by the LRC and published by the LSM.

I do not understand the fixation and hangup with the fact that there are superficial Christians whether in the LRC or anywhere else? I find this mockery particularly distasteful since I do not meet with the LRC and in my experience, there are plenty of superficial Christians outside of the LRC. I have heard many prayers that are as fleshly as you can get. But I don't mock them because I realize the real error in the LRC is their pride and arrogance.

As I recall I thought RG's book "Lord...Thou saidst" (thank you Ohio) was beneficial in improving my prayer life. I felt as a result of that book and the Biblical evidence he provided that if I could punctuate my prayer with "Lord...thou saidst" not as a formula, but by Finding God's will in His word, that would have impact. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I don't ever use the phrase "Lord thous saidst" in my prayer, but I often do seek to pray God's word back to him.

No doubt your mockery of pray reading is a shoe that fits many in the LRC, but certainly not everybody. I stayed at Dunton House in 1996. There were two older sisters there (in their 70s and 80s) and an elder (also in his 70s I think) in addition there was another brother. These 4 had all been in the LRC far longer than I, and I first met with the LC in '78. Their practice of praying the word for morning watch did not resemble your mockery in any way. We read the word, fellowshipped over it (perhaps, perhaps not), raised some prayer requests / burdens (again maybe yes, maybe no) and then finished by each praying. They refused to use that LSM booklet. The church in NY had a schedule on a weekly basis of verses for morning watch that were based on the messages during the Lord's day morning. No other church that I had met with had that practice, but so what, we used those verses in our morning watch.

For those of us who understood the genealogy of the practice, the point was that the word of God keeps us aligned with God's will and we knew that prayer is, at least in part, praying that God's will would be done.

As for your mockery, I wish many more Christians would have a time in the word every morning along the lines that we did.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I stayed at Dunton House in 1996. There were two older sisters there ... and an elder ... [whose] practice of praying the word for morning watch did not resemble your mockery in any way. We read the word, fellowshipped over it ... raised some prayer requests / burdens ... and then finished by each praying. They refused to use that LSM booklet. ... No other church that I had met with had that practice, but so what...

You seem to be citing the exception (Dunton House, 1996), and then wondering why OBW is mocking the rule promoted by LSM and practiced nearly universally in the LCs?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

You seem to be citing the exception (Dunton House, 1996), and then wondering why OBW is mocking the rule promoted by LSM and practiced nearly universally in the LCs?

I thought I was clear. To my mind the error in the LRC was pride and arrogance, hence their fall. To mock superficial Christians is to me an example of pride and arrogance. So you wish to point out the error of the LRC by continuing to walk in pride and arrogance, that is what I don't understand.

Second, if you are honest you will admit that reading and praying the Bible in a superficial way is hardly the worst thing that superficial Christians do. I choose not to mock others because I feel my error was pride and arrogance. If I choose not to mock what are clearly fleshly prayers, why would I mock the LRC's superficial pray reading?

My point in using the example of Dunton House is that the mockery does not apply to all in the LRC. Ask OBW if his family practices pray reading the way he is mocking others? If his father doesn't, isn't that relevant?

[UntoHim]

ZNP I don't see where Mike is mocking.

His example:
"Our Father. Oh, Lord, Amen, Our Father! Yes, Lord, our Father! Hallelujah, our Father! . . . Thy kingdom! Oh, Lord, Your kingdom! It's all about your kingdom! Save us prom prayers about anything but your kingdom! Come. Oh, Lord, Come! Come! Come! . . . "

This is an accurate example. Plus Mike went on further to give a very detailed and helpful (in my view) rebuttal and provided to us what "pray-reading" should really look like.

I am reminded of the apostle Paul's word to the Corinthians: "I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also". In my opinion what is practiced in the LC ignores the mind part. Of course when you tell people to "get out of their mind" what else could you expect?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

ZNP I don't see where Mike is mocking.

His example:
"Our Father. Oh, Lord, Amen, Our Father! Yes, Lord, our Father! Hallelujah, our Father! . . . Thy kingdom! Oh, Lord, Your kingdom! It's all about your kingdom! Save us prom prayers about anything but your kingdom! Come. Oh, Lord, Come! Come! Come! . . . "

This is an accurate example. Plus Mike went on further to give a very detailed and helpful (in my view) rebuttal and provided to us what "pray-reading" should really look like.

I am reminded of the apostle Paul's word to the Corinthians: "I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also". In my opinion what is practiced in the LC ignores the mind part. Of course when you tell people to "get out of their mind" what else could you expect?

Do you pray with your mind also? Would you be offended if I said you didn't? How about OBW? How about OBW's family that still meets with the LRC?

The question is you don't see where Mike is mocking. My response is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I consider it very much over the line if someone criticizes and complains about my prayer and my time with the Lord. I personally do not practice "pray reading" as described by OBW, not even when I was in the FTTT. No one ever pressured me, I just prayed quietly while others did all of that. But on the other hand I never criticized. I have heard one argument that in the LRC you have to adopt this practice or else you are not "one". Yet, this approach of attacking this practice is to me no different, just the other side of the pendulum.

In my experience the most vocal and energetic of this style of "pray reading" were those who were recent converts. Surely you remember the joy of your salvation. Maybe they are just expressing that and it takes a year or two to work its way out.

Ultimately, I have seen a lot that I would be critical of in Christians, particularly sin and the flesh. I think criticizing pray reading is not on my list. I have known many, many saints in the LRC that had been there for over 10 years and I can't think of any that stands out as being "mindless".

This thread is "combating LC arguments". Someone brought up pray reading and my response was to use RG's book as a place where you could meet and fellowship with this person. I feel that they would be open to the fellowship and it might help them to see that their practice, if it is the case, is mindless and not what was practiced by the saints of old. I stand by that advice.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you pray with your mind also? Would you be offended if I said you didn't? How about OBW? How about OBW's family that still meets with the LRC?

The question is you don't see where Mike is mocking. My response is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I consider it very much over the line if someone criticizes and complains about my prayer and my time with the Lord. I personally do not practice "pray reading" as described by OBW, not even when I was in the FTTT. No one ever pressured me, I just prayed quietly while others did all of that. But on the other hand I never criticized. I have heard one argument that in the LRC you have to adopt this practice or else you are not "one". Yet, this approach of attacking this practice is to me no different, just the other side of the pendulum.

In my experience the most vocal and energetic of this style of "pray reading" were those who were recent converts. Surely you remember the joy of your salvation. Maybe they are just expressing that and it takes a year or two to work its way out.

Ultimately, I have seen a lot that I would be critical of in Christians, particularly sin and the flesh. I think criticizing pray reading is not on my list. I have known many, many saints in the LRC that had been there for over 10 years and I can't think of any that stands out as being "mindless".

This thread is "combating LC arguments". Someone brought up pray reading and my response was to use RG's book as a place where you could meet and fellowship with this person. I feel that they would be open to the fellowship and it might help them to see that their practice, if it is the case, is mindless and not what was practiced by the saints of old. I stand by that advice.

Hello dear brother ZNPaaneah,

Just some random comments on your post:

1) I like Ray Graver's book "Lord . . . Thou Saidst". It may well be the best thing that LSM has ever published. As dear brother Ohio has pointed out, none of the examples from Scripture or from Church History support Witness Lee's style of "pray-reading". In Ray Graver's book, we see some very touching examples of dear brothers and sisters who incorporated the Scriptures into their prayers and who incorporated prayer into their reading of the Scriptures. NOWHERE is this book do we find anything like the "Shout-Reading" promoted by WL and LSM in their booklet entitled "Pray Reading the Word". WL's method is NOT supported by Scripture or by Church History.

2) If you think dear brother OBW was mocking in the example that he gave, please check out this word-for-word quotation from LSM's booklet entitled "Pray Reading the Word" (emphasis mine):

"We would not argue in a doctrinal way, but we must realize that there is no need for us to close our eyes when we pray. It is better for us to close our mind! For example, in pray-reading Galatians 2:20 simply look at the printed page, which says, “I am crucified with Christ.” Then with your eyes upon the Word and praying from deep within, say: “Praise the Lord, ‘I am crucified with Christ.’ Hallelujah! ‘Crucified with Christ.’ Amen! ‘I am.’ O Lord, ‘I am crucified.’ Praise the Lord! ‘Crucified with Christ.’ Amen! ‘I am crucified with ’ Hallelujah! Amen! ‘And it is no longer.’ Amen. ‘No longer.’ Amen. ‘I who live.’ O Lord. ‘I who live.’ Hallelujah! Amen! ‘But it is Christ who lives in me,’ etc.” Then perhaps you will turn to John 10:10 and read, “I have come that they may have life.” Then with your eyes still on the Bible you can pray: “‘I have come.’ Amen! ‘I have come.’ Hallelujah! ‘I have come that they may have life.’ Praise the Lord! ‘May have life.’ Hallelujah! ‘Life.’ Amen! ‘Life.’ O Lord, ‘Life.’” "

From this quote, we can see that OBW was not far from the mark. If OBW was mocking, then LSM is mocking themselves in their own booklet on pray-reading.

3) I have practiced "Shout-Reading" (WL's and LSM's version of "pray-reading") with brothers and sisters all over North and South America in dozens of localities. I have encountered a few localities where LSM-style pray-reading is not promoted that much, but in the vast majority of localities the leading brothers want to be in lock-step with Anaheim and LSM-style pray-reading is very much promoted.

4) In my experience, it is the leading brothers and the old-timers who are most zealous for LSM-style pray-reading. Some new converts seem to like it, but most do not like it. If it was mostly new converts it would have died away by now. From what I have experienced in multiple localities, it is definitely the leading brothers and the old-timers from Eldon Hall who most zealously promote this practice.

5) I do not know about the FTTT, but LSM-style pray-reading was heavily promoted right from the start in the FTTA. About ten years ago I listened to all the audio tapes in the series "The Exercise and Practice of the God-Ordained Way" given by WL in the late 1980's to one of the original set of FTTA trainees in the United States. Before many of the messages, WL had the trainees pray-read the verses for that message. Interestingly, the trainees never seem to have gotten it right, and WL was constantly scolding their attempts at pray-reading. Even today, FTTA trainees practicee LSM-style pray-reading A LOT, multiple times a day. From what I have seen in localities that have received a "Full-Timer Team" to work on the local campus(es), the "Full-Timers" (former FTT trainees) do several things: they gradually dominate the "prophecying" meetings and, regardless of current practices in that locality, they strongly promote the practices of LSM-style pray-reading and calling on the Lord.

Just some random thoughts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Hello dear brother ZNPaaneah,

Just some random comments on your post:

1) I like Ray Graver's book "Lord . . . Thou Saidst". It may well be the best thing that LSM has ever published. As dear brother Ohio has pointed out, none of the examples from Scripture or from Church History support Witness Lee's style of "pray-reading". In Ray Graver's book, we see some very touching examples of dear brothers and sisters who incorporated the Scriptures into their prayers and who incorporated prayer into their reading of the Scriptures. NOWHERE is this book do we find anything like the "Shout-Reading" promoted by WL and LSM in their booklet entitled "Pray Reading the Word". WL's method is NOT supported by Scripture or by Church History.

2) If you think dear brother OBW was mocking in the example that he gave, please check out this word-for-word quotation from LSM's booklet entitled "Pray Reading the Word" (emphasis mine):



From this quote, we can see that OBW was not far from the mark. If OBW was mocking, then LSM is mocking themselves in their own booklet on pray-reading.

3) I have practiced "Shout-Reading" (WL's and LSM's version of "pray-reading") with brothers and sisters all over North and South America in dozens of localities. I have encountered a few localities where LSM-style pray-reading is not promoted that much, but in the vast majority of localities the leading brothers want to be in lock-step with Anaheim and LSM-style pray-reading is very much promoted.

4) In my experience, it is the leading brothers and the old-timers who are most zealous for LSM-style pray-reading. Some new converts seem to like it, but most do not like it. If it was mostly new converts it would have died away by now. From what I have experienced in multiple localities, it is definitely the leading brothers and the old-timers from Eldon Hall who most zealously promote this practice.

5) I do not know about the FTTT, but LSM-style pray-reading was heavily promoted right from the start in the FTTA. About ten years ago I listened to all the audio tapes in the series "The Exercise and Practice of the God-Ordained Way" given by WL in the late 1980's to one of the original set of FTTA trainees in the United States. Before many of the messages, WL had the trainees pray-read the verses for that message. Interestingly, the trainees never seem to have gotten it right, and WL was constantly scolding their attempts at pray-reading. Even today, FTTA trainees practicee LSM-style pray-reading A LOT, multiple times a day. From what I have seen in localities that have received a "Full-Timer Team" to work on the local campus(es), the "Full-Timers" (former FTT trainees) do several things: they gradually dominate the "prophecying" meetings and, regardless of current practices in that locality, they strongly promote the practices of LSM-style pray-reading and calling on the Lord.

Just some random thoughts.

Thank you, it seems that there may be a significant change from 1987 to the present in the practice. I find that interesting, but have no way to verify since it is almost 15 years since I was last there.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

3) I have practiced "Shout-Reading" (WL's and LSM's version of "pray-reading") with brothers and sisters all over North and South America in dozens of localities. I have encountered a few localities where LSM-style pray-reading is not promoted that much ...

Lots of practices passed through the LC's. PSRP was another one. I'm surprised they are still doing that shout-reading thing. Don't they ever get bored with the same old stuff?

Back in the 80's, my LC obtained an interesting reputation for a practice called "rap-reading." It was started partly in response to contemporary "rap," which was in its infancy, and as a way to get the young teenagers reading the word in a fun way. It kind of took on a life of its own as one small group would rap-read during their meetings. Each would take turns leading the others, who repeated what was said exactly, including tones a rhymes.

They had great fun with it. Some were quite good. You needed to be quick witted with a fast tongue. I was not that good at it, and only did it a few times, but sometimes it was a barrel of laughs. A good number of saints had fun with it for a while. It was basically harmless, though some felt it was a little disrespectful and childish.

The sister who started the thing in motion eventually left the faith. My wife felt the elders were childish for letting it go on as it did. The brothers actually had a few successful performances regionally, with all the saints laughing, until TC frowned on the practice.

A few years after that, the region picked up on Polynesian dancing from Malaysia, but that's another story ...

Anybody feel that earthquake?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you pray with your mind also? Would you be offended if I said you didn't? How about OBW? How about OBW's family that still meets with the LRC?

ZNP, first of all you’re taking this too personal. Critiquing and challenging teachings and practices does not have to be taken as a personal insult. Again, I see nowhere where Mike or anyone else (except maybe awareness, and he’s kind of grandfathered in as the board antagonist) has crossed the line into personal insults. And if you are offended by my citing a perfectly applicable portion of scripture, well then I just don’t know what to tell you about that.

The question is you don't see where Mike is mocking. My response is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I consider it very much over the line if someone criticizes and complains about my prayer and my time with the Lord. I personally do not practice "pray reading" as described by OBW, not even when I was in the FTTT. No one ever pressured me, I just prayed quietly while others did all of that. But on the other hand I never criticized. I have heard one argument that in the LRC you have to adopt this practice or else you are not "one". Yet, this approach of attacking this practice is to me no different, just the other side of the pendulum.

You contradict yourself here. You say that you “personally do not practice ‘pray reading’ as described by OBW” and yet you say that it’s “very much over the line of someone criticizes and complains about my prayer and my time with the Lord”. If you do not practice pray-reading as described by OBW and others here, then why are you so offended by the criticisms? You say “on the other hand I never criticized”. Great. Nobody here is forcing you to criticize anything (though you are free to do so), but I am going to ask you to give the freedom and grace to others who feel that the way pray-reading is practiced in the Local Church is neither scriptural nor especially profitable.

Ultimately, I have seen a lot that I would be critical of in Christians, particularly sin and the flesh. I think criticizing pray reading is not on my list.

Great, pray reading is not on your list. So be it. You have your list and I have mine. So long as a poster’s “list” does not include flaming and insulting other members, extra strong or foul language or other forum no-nos, then they can post here.

I have known many, many saints in the LRC that had been there for over 10 years and I can't think of any that stands out as being "mindless".

Who called anybody “mindless”? Please point that post out to me. I hope you have a lot of time on your hands cause you’re not going to find it. I think you may find some of us criticizing the mindless way that pray-reading is practiced in the Local Church. Sorry ZNP, but your saying that “I didn’t pray-read that way” is not a good defense of the practice of pray-reading as it has been practiced in the LC since the early days.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

ZNP, first of all you’re taking this too personal. Critiquing and challenging teachings and practices does not have to be taken as a personal insult. Again, I see nowhere where Mike or anyone else (except maybe awareness, and he’s kind of grandfathered in as the board antagonist) has crossed the line into personal insults. And if you are offended by my citing a perfectly applicable portion of scripture, well then I just don’t know what to tell you about that.

Well I'll respond to this first.

1. I am not taking this personal at all. My discussion here has been almost exclusively about RG's book which I was the first to mention and therefore feel obligated to respond to. I am not a fan of pray reading as practiced in the LRC. I think people are free to practice as they please and see nothing inherently dangerous about mixing the Bible with what I would characterize charitably as an attempt to pray. What I have attempted to do is distinguish between what was taught concerning Pray reading back in 1980/81 in Houston by RG.

2. If OBW or you do not feel that those remarks, directed at yourself, would be insulting, then I would agree with you.

3. Why would I be offended by citing Bible verses? My point is simple, what you are doing is what the LRC practices. They cite Bible verses to prove everyone else is wrong. The idea that one verse in the NT is a basis to reject their practice is no different than the reasoning WL came up with to reject Christian drama. Why not cite David dancing before the Lord who was then mocked by his wife? That seems like a much more appropriate verse reference to me. OBW has stated repeatedly that he feels the teachings and practices of the LRC need to be completely reexamined. Why can't you see the similarity with WL talking about poor Christianity and what you are doing?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You contradict yourself here. You say that you “personally do not practice ‘pray reading’ as described by OBW” and yet you say that it’s “very much over the line of someone criticizes and complains about my prayer and my time with the Lord”. If you do not practice pray-reading as described by OBW and others here, then why are you so offended by the criticisms? You say “on the other hand I never criticized”. Great. Nobody here is forcing you to criticize anything (though you are free to do so), but I am going to ask you to give the freedom and grace to others who feel that the way pray-reading is practiced in the Local Church is neither scriptural nor especially profitable.

No, I don't contradict myself. Treat others the way you want to be treated. I don't want others critiquing my prayer and personal time with the Lord, therefore I will afford them the same treatment. What makes me especially vocal in this is that I am keenly aware that when I appear before the Lord I will be judged with what judgement I judge. Criticizing the way others worship the Lord seems to me to be a way to make that time before the judgement seat particularly onerous.

I have already provided numerous verses to support my assertion that praying the word back to God is scriptural. This has been challenged by OBW and I have responded in detail. I don't think it is necessary to add anything here.

I have not taken away anyone's freedom on this forum.

I agree that the way pray-reading is described by OBW (and based on your quote, by the LSM as well) is not something I feel led to do, but I am not the Lord, it is not for me to judge what is and is not profitable for someone else. I do feel that the way Pray reading was taught to me by RG and described in his book "Lord Thou saidst" is something that is profitable.

Personally I find this book extremely interesting as it gives a window into RG right before JI was ousted and the Texas brothers took control of the LSM.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Who called anybody “mindless”? Please point that post out to me. I hope you have a lot of time on your hands cause you’re not going to find it. I think you may find some of us criticizing the mindless way that pray-reading is practiced in the Local Church. Sorry ZNP, but your saying that “I didn’t pray-read that way” is not a good defense of the practice of pray-reading as it has been practiced in the LC since the early days.

No one called anyone mindless. My point, though I clearly did not explain it, was that one observation that would support pray reading being a mindless form of prayer is that after years of practicing it those that practice it would themselves seem to be mindless. So I pointed out that I have not observed this even though with all of the saints I met you would have thought I would.

Since most of our prayer life is done in secret, in our closet, I cannot assume to know who is praying in a mindless way (ie your quote about praying with the mind).

You clearly misunderstand my posts on this thread, I am not defending the way pray reading is practiced in the LRC. As KTS has so clearly illuminated, things have changed since WL died. I have not met with the LRC since WL died. 15 years is a long time, I have no idea how it is practiced.

I did point out that when I was in the LRC it was not true to say that everyone practiced it the same way. I gave an illustration with 4 people that most saints would have met had they visited NY, especially if they took hospitality in NY.

Obviously I have been in many meetings that the practice occurred just like OBW described. What I noticed and has not been brought out here, is that in a meeting of 200 saints it was rarely more than 15 saints who would dominate the meeting with that practice. That means over 90% were not active in all of that. So I am not defending the practice, what I am defending is what Paul said "Who are you, O man, to judge another man's servant, to his own Lord he stands or falls".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do not understand the fixation and hangup with the fact that there are superficial Christians whether in the LRC or anywhere else? I find this mockery particularly distasteful since I do not meet with the LRC and in my experience, there are plenty of superficial Christians outside of the LRC. I have heard many prayers that are as fleshly as you can get. But I don't mock them because I realize the real error in the LRC is their pride and arrogance.

As I recall I thought RG's book "Lord...Thou saidst" (thank you Ohio) was beneficial in improving my prayer life. I felt as a result of that book and the Biblical evidence he provided that if I could punctuate my prayer with "Lord...thou saidst" not as a formula, but by Finding God's will in His word, that would have impact. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I don't ever use the phrase "Lord thous saidst" in my prayer, but I often do seek to pray God's word back to him.

No doubt your mockery of pray reading is a shoe that fits many in the LRC, but certainly not everybody. I stayed at Dunton House in 1996. There were two older sisters there (in their 70s and 80s) and an elder (also in his 70s I think) in addition there was another brother. These 4 had all been in the LRC far longer than I, and I first met with the LC in '78. Their practice of praying the word for morning watch did not resemble your mockery in any way. We read the word, fellowshipped over it (perhaps, perhaps not), raised some prayer requests / burdens (again maybe yes, maybe no) and then finished by each praying. They refused to use that LSM booklet. The church in NY had a schedule on a weekly basis of verses for morning watch that were based on the messages during the Lord's day morning. No other church that I had met with had that practice, but so what, we used those verses in our morning watch.

For those of us who understood the genealogy of the practice, the point was that the word of God keeps us aligned with God's will and we knew that prayer is, at least in part, praying that God's will would be done.

As for your mockery, I wish many more Christians would have a time in the word every morning along the lines that we did.

You like to refer to it as mockery. But I am making direct reference to the practice that I saw and was taught over a 14+ year period in which "pray reading" was never anything but exactly as I referenced. And that little booklet from back in the late 60s or early 70s was all about that kind of pray reading.

And I'm pretty sure that was the practice that RG felt a need to defend since that kind of pray reading was what the first booklet (also written by a Texas brother, although I don't remember who now) covered and was what the Mindbenders and/or others were referring to.

I did not accuse you of defending the LRC. I just noted that they things your brought up were consistent with what I think most non-LRC people would think of if faced with the term "pray reading."

But I'm not sure that the "morning watch" version of pray reading that I ever saw would be something I would suggest to any Christians. It might give a good feeling, like many mindless activities can be when engaged in as a "tune-out" kind of venture. I can't comment on your experience because I wasn't there to compare to what I saw. I know that there was something about what I saw that always bothered me. But until long after I left, I was convinced enough of its "rightness" that I would have defended it despite my personal misgivings.

That is the kind of thing that really makes me wary of so many things LRC. It gets into your nostrils and hair and clothes and you think you can smell roses and its still LRC garlic. They taught us some things that they said were so spiritual that I still don't think about whether they really are. We just assume it is true.

And I have to assume that it is happening elsewhere. And you are getting the results of my willful questioning of everything LRC. It all needs to be proved by reference to something wholly unrelated to the LRC. I even distrust the sense of experience unless there is something more to it than that.

[OBW]

To respond to your post on the points I think needing response, I will simply copy and paste the whole thing in here and then edit it down to what I want to respond to.

My new comments are in GREEN.

-----

You asked me to "rethink" this. I went back to OBW's post, here, per your request, is my "rethinking".

This is OBW’s post #51 in black.

ZNP,

. . . . The practice being defended by Graver's little book was the one described in the earlier book in which neither true reading of the word, nor prayer that looks anything like what Jesus taught when he said, among other things "Thy will be done." Nor any of the other passages you quote in which clear, coherent sentences of profound meaning were turned into something like:

"Our Father. Oh, Lord, Amen, Our Father! Yes, Lord, our Father! Hallelujah, our Father! . . . Thy kingdom! Oh, Lord, Your kingdom! It's all about your kingdom! Save us prom prayers about anything but your kingdom! Come. Oh, Lord, Come! Come! Come! . . . "

This is not right. RG’s book did not quote this or refer to this. The context of the book was that the Mind Benders book was out accusing the LC of “chanting”. RG was proving that “praying the word back to God” is scriptural and didn’t come from the Far East. No doubt he was defending the practice in the LC by compiling these quotes. But it is a huge stretch and very unfair to him at the time to say he was defending a mindless practice of pray reading. On the contrary, there is nothing in his book that would have supported that. The most you can say is that he was saying that since these saints prayed the word back to God, so can we without being a cult. He didn’t discuss the practice of it. The practice of pray reading in 2011 can hardly be considered the practice in 1979 when he first probably started this book.

If you start with the fist sentence I included after the ellipsis, I am giving the practice that RG is defending, not the practice he is describing in his book. I'm not sure who wrote the other book, but it really does sort of describe something like I laid out. It is not a mockery. And it is the whole of what I ever saw in the LRC from Jan 1973 through August 1987.

I really don't care what the practice in certain places in 2011 is because RG did not write about that. He wrote about what was at the time. Well, he wrote with the intent of making what he wrote about seem to be covering what was common practice at the time.

And so on. And it can be argued that simply because the actual words from scripture are in there, it is a "sound" praying of the word. But while I did manage to leave the content vaguely recognizable, the process of dealing with scripture are more than sanctified syllables that contain power in their utterance — sort of like the effects of speaking the words from the Book of the Dead in the Mummy series of semi-modern swashbuckling adventure movies. The words contained in The Word have far less meaning as dictionary entries as they do in sentences, paragraphs, and whole passages.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds like mockery to me. Was this quoted from an LSM publication?

No. It is a fairly faithful representation of the kind of thing that I heard and participated in over a 14+ year period. This is no quote from a publication.

And while there is power in the Word of God, it is not from merely saying the words contained in it. It is from reading for wisdom and understanding — something that the deconstruction of sentences into snippets divorced from their companions cannot do. There is no mystical power in mashing a bunch of words together in a meaningless way. That is not "letting the Word wash over you." It is no better than sitting in a circle and chanting "om." You feel better. You have been engaged in an exercise of emotional exhilaration but with no spiritual significance.

This to me is a prime example of “who are you to judge another man’s servant, to his own master he stands or falls”. I believe Paul has drawn a very clear line with this verse and that this post has crossed that line.

I tire of your "who are you to judge another man's servant." That just makes us all into servants of Lee and therefore free from any questioning of what might be wrong there. Besides, what is the "this verse" that Paul has drawn any kind of line about? I am not referring to any verse of Paul's that I am aware of. Did you dream this part? If you don't want to "judge" anything, what the heck are you doing here??

. . . .

So, a little book like Lord Thou Saidst correctly points to prayer in conjunction with what we know to be written in scripture. But that book is not being used to defend the practices mentioned in it, but something different. Something that only shares the words "pray" and "reading" with the examples brought out in the book.

This is unsubstantiated. Give me a quote from the book that does this. I have already stipulated that the book was a polemic to defend the LC practice. But you haven’t provided anything that demonstrates that the practice in 1979 in Houston was drastically different from what RG wrote.

You are joking. Right? It has already been stated that the book came out during the time of the lawsuits as a historical view of praying with the word so that the LRC practice of pray reading could be defended. Are you disagreeing with this? Are you suggesting that the method of pray reading that you see in 2011 is what was seen by observers prior to 1981? Back to the origins of pray reading. Back when Duddy and others visited LRCs to see for themselves? They may have made more out of it in a negative way than I did, but it was what it was.

But the book isn't going to quote anything that mentions what I did. That is what it is trying to hide. Trying to make go away.

In effect, the whole premise of that book is a kind of equivocation. They make note of practices that they call pray reading (and even others have called pray reading), then assert that their practice is also called pray reading and is therefore covered. But it ain't necessarily so.

I knew RG from 1978 to 1981. I have learned things that have shocked and disappointed me concerning him on this forum. I feel he may have hid his eyes during the JI expulsion. But it is a very serious matter in the NT to accuse an elder of lying or equivocation. I find this to be very insulting, I feel you have crossed the line with this comment, and I feel you need to back it up with solid witnesses and evidence. Because based on Paul’s word in the NT I am not to receive a charge against an elder unless it is from several reputable witnesses, and this is not.

Equivocation can be both intentional and unintentional. But after all the stuff that Benson and Ray did in the whitewashing of JI and others, I do not have any compunction to fear saying that lies have proceeded from his mouth. I would suggest that the deception was intentional.

I would also suggest that he probably was loose in his thinking and simply thought that any kind of prayer with the Word was sufficient since prayer with the Word is prayer with the Word. And if that was as far as he thought, then maybe he wasn't willfully deceptive about it. Maybe more like he was himself deceived.

But if the purpose of the book was to defend the LRC practices at the time of those early lawsuits, and you have even pointed out within this post (a part I have not kept) that the book can be used to show how the LRC is not really engaged in the practices mentioned in that book, then how do you say that there is no equivocation of any kind if the purpose was to defend one thing by showing something else with a similar name. Isn't that the raw definition of equivocation?

So save your dissertation on examples of praying words from prior scripture contained within the scripture. I already agreed with that kind of practice.

And for anyone who still practices that stew-of-a-prayer the LRC calls pray reading, are you empowered to go out and care for the needy after pray reading those passages? Or is pray reading them not on the agenda?

Once again, the use of the term “dissertation” is mocking, especially since both you and Awareness asked directly for references to support the statement that “the word of God is designed to be prayed”. References are asked for, I provide them, you mock. As to empowering saints to live the Christian life, let the Lord judge.

And, despite all of your sources and references, you actually have not established that "the word of God is designed to be prayed." It can be prayed. Some of it is already prayer. But you have failed to actually deal with the question. The question is not whether you can pray the word. It is whether it was designed to be prayed. Is there any evidence that, as a general statement, you can show that the word is designed — written with the structure and intent that it would be prayed.

You can make generalizations about where there are prayers contained in scripture. You can find that some portions of scripture were actually prayed by someone else in other scripture. But you haven't established that anything says that it was designed to be prayed.

-----

I could explain that finding prayers, and verses prayed, is like finding verses that say "to the church in [city]" and declaring that churches must be by city. It could be true in some cases. But there are other cases that are not that way. Just as there are a vast array of verses in scripture that are not demonstrated as being prayed, nor are they said that they should be prayed.

No one has said you should not pray scripture. But you cannot find anything that establishes that it is expressly designed to be prayed. That is the point.

[kisstheson]

Hello dear ones. I have to admit that my respect for Ray Graver's book entitled Lord . . . Thou Saidst has plummeted since this discussion began. I still like the contents of the book, but the reason it was written was very disingenuous, to say the least. Based upon LSM's own words in the booklet entitled Pray Reading the Word, other Christians had PLENTY to be concerned about regarding LSM's version of pray-reading.

There is absolutely nothing in Ray Graver's book which defends LSM's version of pray-reading. Nothing! The clearest NT example of an assembly incorporating Scripture into their prayer is given in Acts 4:24-26. This account is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from the high volume, pep-rally, 6.7 6.7 cadence, chop-the-scriptures-up-into-tiny-pieces, "close your mind", "no time to use your mind" approach to pray-reading promoted by LSM. Dear brother Ray Graver - if you are reading this post, you desperately need to repent! Writing a book to document how other dear ones have used the Scriptures in their prayers and have prayed as the read the Scriptures actually condemns LSM's approach since LSM's approach to pray-reading is NOTHING LIKE what we see in the Scriptures or what we see in the testimony of church history.

There is a HUGE chasm between George Whitefield on his knees tearfully reading his Bible and praying over what he read to obtain strength to carry out his campaigns of soul-winning vs. LRC meetings where the pep-rally, rapid-paced, shout-reading takes place.

I don't know Ray Graver's heart at the time of writing, but the purpose of his book was extremely disingenuous. Between this book and Witness Lee's lies while under oath in court, I am INCREDIBLY SICKENED by the whole WL/LSM charade in their so-called "defense". What a bunch of phonies! There is such a blatant disparity between the image LSM tries so hard to publicly display and the true inner workings of their sectarian, aberrant, sick little group. I am no fan of The God Men or The Mind Benders, but I am finding out all the time that other Christians had plenty to be concerned about with LSM and the LRC.

Sorry for the strong language, but finding out the real history behind this book that I have always admired really makes me want to vomit!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

I don't know Ray Graver's heart at the time of writing, but the purpose of his book was extremely disingenuous. Between this book and Witness Lee's lies while under oath in court, I am INCREDIBLY SICKENED by the whole WL/LSM charade in their so-called "defense". What a bunch of phonies! There is such a blatant disparity between the image LSM tries so hard to publicly display and the true inner workings of their sectarian, aberrant, sick little group. I am no fan of The God Men or The Mind Benders, but I am finding out all the time that other Christians had plenty to be concerned about with LSM and the LRC.

Sorry for the strong language, but finding out the real history behind this book that I have always admired really makes me want to vomit!

KisstheSon, you really "vented" in this post.

I have heard about WL's lies under oath, but not really studied it. Do you have more info?

I give Graver's book a pass, however, due to context. In those days, LC members were being kidnapped and deprogrammed due to the hyper hysteria post-Jonestown. Graver did not have the benefit of knowing what we know now. He was attempting to legitimatize a practice based on church history. Too bad others never read his book. I can testify that his book helped the brothers I was with from mindless repetitions of segments of scripture. We still shouted occasionally, but it was not mindless robotic public exhibition.

Brothers in the 70's were much more "in tune" with the "idealism of the initial vision," for lack of a better expression. The concepts of "recovery" and "standing on the shoulders" of past men of God were more real to the saints. Many bro/sis read biographies in those days. LSM had very few books, rather loose ministry messages were common. Other brothers were writing things too, not just RG. Things in the church were much different then, and society was also different.

I actually believe that the Lord had a role in that early "shout-reading." Church history is filled with "strange" practices, appropriate in context, but strange to the reader. If the Lord is shouting, then by all means, let's all shout! The real danger is not shouting, but the vain repetition, doing it mindlessly, long after the Lord has quit.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

KisstheSon, you really "vented" in this post.

I have heard about WL's lies under oath, but not really studied it. Do you have more info?

I give Graver's book a pass, however, due to context. In those days, LC members were being kidnapped and deprogrammed due to the hyper hysteria post-Jonestown. Graver did not have the benefit of knowing what we know now. He was attempting to legitimatize a practice based on church history. Too bad others never read his book. I can testify that his book helped the brothers I was with from mindless repetitions of segments of scripture. We still shouted occasionally, but it was not mindless robotic public exhibition.

Brothers in the 70's were much more "in tune" with the "idealism of the initial vision," for lack of a better expression. The concepts of "recovery" and "standing on the shoulders" of past men of God were more real to the saints. Many bro/sis read biographies in those days. LSM had very few books, rather loose ministry messages were common. Other brothers were writing things too, not just RG. Things in the church were much different then, and society was also different.

I actually believe that the Lord had a role in that early "shout-reading." Church history is filled with "strange" practices, appropriate in context, but strange to the reader. If the Lord is shouting, then by all means, let's all shout! The real danger is not shouting, but the vain repetition, doing it mindlessly, long after the Lord has quit.

Amen, dear brother Ohio. More good points. Very good points especially about the context of the times in which Lord . . . Thou Saidst was written.

If shout reading had served it's time and been allowed to pass from the scene when it's time was over, that would be one thing. In fact, that would have been glorious. But in the LRC regions which are most "absolute" for the ministry of WL and the BB's, shout reading IS pray-reading to this very day. "Witness Lee recovered it and you WILL practice it in our meetings" is the attitude I have encountered. I certainly understand that your region had a very large "umbrella" protecting you from having to be in lock-step with Anaheim. That was not the case for my region.

Just about a year ago at a conference (maybe last year's Thanksgiving Conference?) Ray Graver and Benson Phillips gave an announcement which had to do with a major call for "saints" to migrate to Europe. Ray's portion of the announcement was to rehash the whole history of the LRC in this country. To say the least, he was very, very, positive about WL's form of pray-reading, which he included as a major item of "Recovery". If the BB's really believed in the validity of the testimonies in Ray Graver's book, then this should be reflected in their speaking. Instead, what we get from the BB's is that WL's form or pray-reading is the way pray-reading will be practiced in the LC's.

One thing I don't understand is that if the brothers and sisters were reading biographies in those days, why in the world were sisters like Thankful Jane and Max R's wife condemned for reading Christian biographies? Also, if Ray was so broad-hearted, why did he and Benson begin traveling around the U.S. greatly emphasizing WL and telling churches that they had not done enough for "the apostle" [i.e. WL] and that they needed to "have an account with the apostle"? This was a huge step in turning the LC's into sectarian, narrow, LSM-ministry churches, which seems to be the polar opposite of the spirit of Lord . . . Thou Saidst.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And, despite all of your sources and references, you actually have not established that "the word of God is designed to be prayed." It can be prayed. Some of it is already prayer. But you have failed to actually deal with the question. The question is not whether you can pray the word. It is whether it was designed to be prayed. Is there any evidence that, as a general statement, you can show that the word is designed — written with the structure and intent that it would be prayed.

You can make generalizations about where there are prayers contained in scripture. You can find that some portions of scripture were actually prayed by someone else in other scripture. But you haven't established that anything says that it was designed to be prayed.

-----

I could explain that finding prayers, and verses prayed, is like finding verses that say "to the church in [city]" and declaring that churches must be by city. It could be true in some cases. But there are other cases that are not that way. Just as there are a vast array of verses in scripture that are not demonstrated as being prayed, nor are they said that they should be prayed.

No one has said you should not pray scripture. But you cannot find anything that establishes that it is expressly designed to be prayed. That is the point.

This is true, which is why I still like you. You don’t stop until I can get to the punch line. Everything I have shared is relevant to the comment, but doesn’t establish that the word was designed for this purpose.

1 Peter 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers and James 5:16 – The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. God’s ears are open to the prayers of the righteous, their prayers are effectual, and their prayers avail much. Therefore, if you want God to hear and answer your prayers you need to be a righteous man.

Rom 3:28 – we are justified by faith. Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Paul explains that Abraham was fully persuaded that what God had promised He was able to perform, and therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. This is what he is referring to when he says Abraham was justified by faith. So in Galatians Paul says: 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

It is by faith that we are justified, it is by faith that righteousness is imputed to us, it is by the hearing of faith that God ministers the Spirit to us and works miracles among us.

Then Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The word is designed for us to hear it, and when we hear it faith comes. This is how faith comes. Without that faith it is impossible to please God, it is impossible to be justified, it is impossible to be a righteous man that God hears, a man whose prayers are effectual and that avail much. God has designed his word to transmit this faith to us. Prayer is based on faith. This is what James refers to when he says “the prayer of faith” in 5:15. A prayer of faith is your telling God that you have received his promise and are fully persuaded that He is able to perform it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Good Lord! This has to be one of the WORST examples of "proof-texting" run amok that I have ever seen. This is ludicrous. Utter rubbish.

I know that all sounds harsh and I apologize for the tone, but someone had to say it, dear brother. The Bible is not our plaything! When we have mastered the PLAIN speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles - and there is a great deal of that in the New Testament - then maybe we can start trying to get clever and fancy with allegorizing and proof-texting. May we turn and become as little children and simply obey our Lord and Master.

Our Lord and Master began by telling us to pray "thy will be done". That is where I began with quoting the plain word.

That said, Romans 10:17 "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God" is also a clear word that the word of God is designed to bring us faith.

These verses in the post you are quoting clearly show that faith is an essential component of prayer, you cannot pray without it.

Your car can be perfect in every way, but without gas in the tank it will not be effective at transporting you. So it is perfectly reasonable to say that gasoline is designed for automobiles.

Likewise it is perfectly reasonable to say that the word of God is designed for prayer.

I provided numerous examples of recorded prayers in the OT that clearly involved this principle. OBW is correct in saying that those examples do not prove that the word was designed for prayer, only that others used it for prayer. However, the absence of these examples would cast serious doubt on the assertion that the Bible was designed for prayer. This was related to RG's book whose thesis is that the word of God is designed to be read and prayed.

This forum does not lend itself to 2,000 word responses as OBW pointed out in referring to the verses in another post as a "dissertation". He was also correct to point out that I had not come to the conclusion. Therefore I had to remind other readers that this was a conclusion to numerous other posts.