Pray-Reading

[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.