Pray-Reading

[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?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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?

I am not trying to prove everyone else is wrong. I am discussing pray-reading, a long established staple practice in the Local Church movement. I quoted one verse as PART of my argument and was not presenting the idea that one verse in the NT is a basis to reject the practice. (I do agree that Witness Lee did this very thing though) So the desire to "reexamine" the teachings and practices of one little sect is to be considered the same thing as Witness Lee's blanket condemnation of the whole of "Christianity"? Really? You may want to rethink that one.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am not trying to prove everyone else is wrong. I am discussing pray-reading, a long established staple practice in the Local Church movement. I quoted one verse as PART of my argument and was not presenting the idea that one verse in the NT is a basis to reject the practice. (I do agree that Witness Lee did this very thing though) So the desire to "reexamine" the teachings and practices of one little sect is to be considered the same thing as Witness Lee's blanket condemnation of the whole of "Christianity"? Really? You may want to rethink that one.

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,

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. 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.


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?

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.

And the problem is not that there is no such thing through history as what might be called "pray reading," but that there is no record of the kind of thing that the LRC pushed as "pray reading." As you point out, there are numerous examples of praying by using passages of scripture as major portions of your own prayer. Or mixing parts of passages into your coherent sentences that, joined together, pray currently in a manner consistent with the passage mixed into your prayer.

Well this misses the point. A brother asked how to respond to saints concerning the issue of pray reading. I suggested that they get this booklet and use it to fellowship. I see no reason why anyone in the LRC would have a problem with reading this booklet, and if their practice was mindless I think this booklet might help them see that. With that as the context this paragraph seems woefully out of context.

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.

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.

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.

Oh, and finding places where scripture contains the recording of a prayer that we can also pray does not support the general statement that scripture in general "was designed to be prayed." A prayer was designed to be prayed. That is not a general statement about the rest of scripture. So you can correctly assert that "there is scripture that was designed to be prayed" and that would be because it was a prayer when it was recorded.

Which also misses the point, or interprets it extremely narrowly. The fact that Solomon quoted scripture when he prayed to God is an example of the practice. Of course you can pray his prayer, but you can also learn from and imitate him.

And just because the word accomplishes God's will, and the words "Thy will be done" are found in a prayer does not support a general statement that the words of scripture are "designed to be prayed." That is just nonsense.

Yes. Pray the Word. Use it all in prayer. We can pray anything (although there clearly is no purpose in praying the American Heritage Dictionary). But that does not make any of it broadly "designed to be prayed." The purpose of scripture in general was not to be prayer. It was to be God's speaking. We can pray it. It is possible to do so. In some cases it is profitable to do so. But I do not see any evidence that, as a whole, it was "designed" as such.

I responded to this already. But, I will add that this was the point of the book “Lord thou saidst”, once God says something He is obligated by his word. This is why I quoted the verse “my word shall not return void”. Since the Bible is “God’s speaking” as you point out, we can latch onto his words and pray them back to him. This aligns us with His will. This reminds Him of his word, something we are told to do, which is why I quoted that word as well in my “dissertation”. This was something that RG shared a lot in Houston, for example on Romans 10:13 he argued that if you call on the Lord, and proclaim that Jesus is Lord, you have to be saved. You could show up at the judgement seat, hold up the Bible and tell the Lord He is obligated, by His word, to save you.

[Cal]

When I was in the LRC, pray-reading was not about prayer and it was not about reading for understanding. It was for using the word as a vehicle to get more in the Spirit. It wasn't praying so much as it was declaring or speaking. It's not bad in itself, it just (like everything else in the LRC) got taken to an extreme. And it got touted as the greatest thing since sliced manna.

That's what is really annoying about the whole thing. The LRC couldn't just have a practice. They had to believe and try to convince everyone else that their practice was the greatest thing ever and that everyone else is a complete idiot for not realizing as much.

I agree with OBW to this extent. Books like "Lord.. Thou Saidst" were not written to encourage a broad audience to pray the Word. They were written to defend an LRC practice which LRCers called praying the word, but which just as easily could be called "chopping verses into pieces and repeating the pieces over and over in the hopes of achieving a spiritual experience."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When I was in the LRC, pray-reading was not about prayer and it was not about reading for understanding. It was for using the word as a vehicle to get more in the Spirit. It wasn't praying so much as it was declaring or speaking. It's not bad in itself, it just (like everything else in the LRC) got taken to an extreme. And it got touted as the greatest thing since sliced manna.

That's what is really annoying about the whole thing. The LRC couldn't just have a practice. They had to believe and try to convince everyone else that their practice was the greatest thing ever and that everyone else is a complete idiot for not realizing as much.

I agree with OBW to this extent. Books like "Lord.. Thou Saidst" were not written to encourage a broad audience to pray the Word. They were written to defend an LRC practice which LRCers called praying the word, but which just as easily could be called "chopping verses into pieces and repeating the pieces over and over in the hopes of achieving a spiritual experience."

My experience was that I never "got" pray reading. I heard glowing testimonies of the practice, but I just filed those away under something I didn't understand. However, when RG shared his booklet with us, I understood that. Since then I have had many wonderful experiences of praying the word of God. For example, I shared before how I rebuked BP in a meeting, and how I stood up to the threats of JD and the elders in Houston, and how I wrote a letter to the elders in Texas rebuking them, etc. How do you do that, it is rebellion, and not get excommunicated? The answer is simple, you pray the word and speak that. When you speak the Lord's word in prayer your head is covered.

Now because of this I never felt "pressured" to pray read in that way.

So it may be that my understanding of that book was not its intended meaning, how could I know what RG intended? I am not omniscient. But I will say this, there were four things that RG shared as elder that left an indelible mark on me. All four of them had to do with standing on the Lord's word and having faith that God would honor His word. Second, my impression of RG was that he never asked more of anyone than he asked of himself. I do not believe that he was a hypocrite. What I do find easier to believe is that in his zeal to be absolute he was deceived. That is the most credible interpretation I have at the present. The biggest surprise for me in coming to these forums was to learn of the errors of BP and RG. WL was not a surprise, and I had already pegged PL by meeting him once without having to know any details.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So it may be that my understanding of that book was not its intended meaning, how could I know what RG intended? I am not omniscient.

I'm not omniscient either, but I know from being in the LRC and particularly from watching the actions of RG that their focus is defending their own beliefs and practices, not defending the things of the Lord in general.

The reason I said the book was published to defend LRC practices was because that's why they did everything. They thought they were they "move of God" so they felt that everything they did was better and more crucial than everything everyone else was doing. They made a practice of putting down everyone else and building themselves up.

The LRC walked and walks around with a chip on its shoulder. It provokes opposition then acts all shocked when it gets it. It behaves anti-socially then blames others for not being sociable. They can't even get excited about people getting saved outside the LRC. They have to talk about them being "Moabites."

RG decided a long time ago that his best service to God is to treat WL and his ministry like they are second to God alone. As far as I'm concerned, that's a warped motive. That's probably the best way to describe the LRC. Warped.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My experience was that I never "got" pray reading. I heard glowing testimonies of the practice, but I just filed those away under something I didn't understand. However, when RG shared his booklet with us, I understood that.

And this is what raises warning flags for so many of us. The glaring difference between "pray reading" as practiced in the LRC, and "pray reading" as defended so eloquently, apparently, in Ray Graver's book.

You say, What's the issue, Graver never talked about the LRC practice in his booklet? To which we reply, Exactly!

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When I was in the LRC, pray-reading was not about prayer and it was not about reading for understanding. It was for using the word as a vehicle to get more in the Spirit. It wasn't praying so much as it was declaring or speaking. It's not bad in itself, it just (like everything else in the LRC) got taken to an extreme. And it got touted as the greatest thing since sliced manna.

That's what is really annoying about the whole thing. The LRC couldn't just have a practice. They had to believe and try to convince everyone else that their practice was the greatest thing ever and that everyone else is a complete idiot for not realizing as much.

I agree with OBW to this extent. Books like "Lord.. Thou Saidst" were not written to encourage a broad audience to pray the Word. They were written to defend an LRC practice which LRCers called praying the word, but which just as easily could be called "chopping verses into pieces and repeating the pieces over and over in the hopes of achieving a spiritual experience."

Brother Igzy! "And it got touted as the greatest thing since sliced manna."

It really was touted as something truly, truly,great. Here is the closing paragraph to LSM's little booklet entitled "Pray Reading the Word":

"Thousands have proven that this is the right way to come to the Word of God. It has revolutionized their lives. It may seem awkward at first, but with practice and a sincere heart, you will touch the living Spirit. If you will try this both privately and corporately, you will be able to testify of the riches of Christ that have been imparted to you by pray-reading the Word of God. You will see blessing and growth in your spiritual life. There will be a great change. By contacting the Word in this way to enjoy Christ and be nourished by Him, you will be a person growing to maturity, full of life and saturated with this living One."

"Thousands have proven . . ."
". . . revolutionized their lives."
"You will see blessing and growth . . ."
"There will be a great change."
"You will be a person growing to maturity . . ."

Just a tad over-sold, don't you think?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Brother Igzy! "And it got touted as the greatest thing since sliced manna."

It really was touted as something truly, truly,great. Here is the closing paragraph to LSM's little booklet entitled "Pray Reading the Word":



"Thousands have proven . . ."
". . . revolutionized their lives."
"You will see blessing and growth . . ."
"There will be a great change."
"You will be a person growing to maturity . . ."

Just a tad over-sold, don't you think?

The whirling of the dervishes is said to accomplish the same release into the realm of the Spirit. Maybe we should whirl while praying the word.

[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".