Teaching on Calling on the Name of the Lord

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The claim I am addressing is what is stated in the footnote: “Calling on the name of the Lord is not a new practice that began with the New Testament...” This is a loaded statement. Firstly, it suggests that calling on the name of the Lord is a specific practice versus a form of worship. Secondly, the statement implies that either people aren’t aware of such a ‘practice’, or that they ‘surprised’ by the practice as seen in the LC. Don’t forget, we are talking about a phrase found throughout the Bible. Where is there any evidence that other Christians remain unaware or ignorant of this phrase?

According to the commentaries it is not just worship it is prayer. How many churches today worship God by calling His name? They sing songs, they don't call His name for the purpose of invocation of His presence.

Having been in denominational churches for 30 years I and my family can testify that the phrase is not mentioned at all and not focused on. WL could possibly be the only bible teacher to highlight this matter and elevate it to the importance that he has. In most churches the only time the Lord's name is used is during prayers of supplication, which is the majority of Christian prayer today. Some churches do not even use the name of Jesus that much, they might use the name God or Father only. However this form of prayer does not invoke the Lord's presence because it is a request for things not a request for the Lord Himself.

In certain denominations I was involved with, it was recognised that there needed to be something more. So sometimes we would practice meditative and contemplative prayer. The aim of this practice was more so to experience the Lord's presence, however I fear it was born out of ritualistic traditions more so than a genuine calling on the Lord.

In Pentecostal churches some of them promote a practice of waiting in the Lord's presence, often using worship music and perhaps calling out to God "Oh God Oh God" etc. This also serves a similar purpose to invoking the Lord's presence but I have observed that a) they do not necessarily use the name of Jesus, and I think that is a key missing ingredient, and also calling on the "Spirit" to come may invoke the wrong spirit, not the Spirit of Christ. Once I worshipped with a lady in this way and she was calling for many spirits of God to come. b)They can overly focus on the atmosphere and music which means it is difficult for them to invoke the Lord's presence unless they have worship music playing.

In the stock standard evangelical biblical churches, they do not practice the presence of God at all according to my knowledge and experience. This could be for a number of reasons: a) they don't believe in or focus on the experience of the Spirit (they may view that as overly charismatic or pentecostal), b) they may believe that the bible replaced the Spirit c) they believe that God's presence is not something to be manifested or experienced, d) they believe God's presence is manifested in an unseen way and we should not use our feelings, etc.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I agree that Gen 4:26 likely indicates a move to more public forms of worship. But my question for you is why are you so quick to assume that using the Lord’s name is simply a loud proclamation of a name? Do you accept the possibility that there was more depth to worship than just that? If the context of this verse is indeed worship (which I think we agree), then where do you see evidence that it indicates it was something more specific than what we might call public worship?

I believe that to "call upon the name of the Lord" means what it says. Even more so when we consider the time period of 3000 BC, I believe it was simple and genuine.

Why do you assume that calling on the name of the Lord is any more than a simple calling on the name of the Lord for salvation?:

Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"

If you think calling on the name of the Lord is "deep worship" then this would mean that a person must conduct deep worship to be saved. So your view does not really make sense.

And how is singing a 5 minute song by Hillsong "Awesome God" (for example), any deeper than calling the Lord's name to invoke His presence? I would question any view that says any religious activity we do is somehow deeper than the Lord's presence. We cannot get much deeper than the Lord's presence.

Christians assume many things. Why are so many Christians quick to assume that to pray in the Lord's name means to say "in Jesus name" at the end of prayers? There is no biblical evidence for that formulaic prayer ritual.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC, of course, believes that calling on the name of the Lord is the way by which we can invoke God. However, the question arises, would they claim this is the only way by which God is invoked? Do they perhaps think it’s the best way? The fact that the LC so heavily emphasizes their version of invocation suggests that they feel their version to be superior. In places like the Psalms, we can find literally 100’s of examples of invocations. Christians use such examples as prayers all the time. Yet, you instead assert the following: It is not surprising that Christianity has lost the practice of calling upon the Lord's name. I’m not sure where you come up with these ideas.

It is not the only way but it is said to be the best way according to our experience. It is something that can be done easily, wherever we are, quietly, loudly, and does not require worship music to be playing as we do it. It is quick and effective way to invoke the Lord's presence, perhaps it has more practical relevance in the underground churches where they don't have the time or cannot risk a long deep worship meeting.

Originally Posted by Freedom

What is practiced in the LC resembles repetition more than it does invocation. True, calling the name of the Lord is a form of invocation, but it doesn’t and can’t stop there. Once I was in the car with an elder and he wanted to call on the Lord the whole time we were in the car. So we did, but it was awkward. There wasn't really any purpose in doing that, and I wouldn’t have done that except the elder insisted we do it. The analogy I would use is this - if I call someone's name, they would be expected to respond. But what if after they responded, I kept calling their name? Then it’s no longer an invocation. It would mean I haven’t acknowledged their response for whatever reason. So I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with proclaiming “Oh Lord Jesus.” I’m just saying if it goes on too long, or if it’s used methodologically (such as “brothers stand and call on the Lord three times”), that would suggest that everyone is missing the point.
.

I agree with you there needs to be balance. As you probably well know in a meeting calling upon the name of the Lord does not normally go on for ever. Normally it is 2 or 3 times. Privately we can do it as much as we feel like. Some see calling upon the name of the Lord as a simple way to "pray continually" as the New Testament commands.

Originally Posted by Freedom

This I must disagree with. The Bible tells us that confessing that Jesus is Lord with our mouths is part of salvation. In the context of salvation, the word confess basically means an acknowledgement of one’s state before God. You cannot gauge that action on a scale of sincerity. The sincerity part is related to belief, and belief is in the heart. When it comes to the facts of salvation, any confession made with the mouth should serve to confirm that the individual understands salvation and their state before God. So getting someone to say “Oh Lord Jesus” doesn’t necessarily mean that they have acknowledged and confessed their sinful state before God. It just means they know God’s name.

Actually it is not just to confess our sinful condition, but to confess that Jesus is Lord.

"confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus" means to confess that Jesus is Lord.

When a person (genuinely) calls Lord Jesus, they are in fact 1) affirming that Jesus is their Lord, and 2) invoking the Lord's presence by prayer so that He can give them the Spirit for salvation. Demons do not call Jesus Lord, e.g. Mark 1:24 they called Him "Jesus of Nazareth". When sinners use the name of the Lord in vain (as a curse word) they say Jesus they don't say Lord Jesus.

The word rendered confess in our bibles is sometimes more properly rendered as profess, which is more than just professing statements of fact but to profess our attachment and identification with Jesus Christ. There is actually no better way to do that than to loudly call upon the Lord's name in public. Just like a child might call out for their parent to show their attachment and identification with their parent.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree with you there needs to be balance. As you probably well know in a meeting calling upon the name of the Lord does not normally go on for ever. Normally it is 2 or 3 times. Privately we can do it as much as we feel like. Some see calling upon the name of the Lord as a simple way to "pray continually" as the New Testament commands.

The situation that I described highlights what I'm trying to get at here, and Ohio's post reflects the same.

I would say that the LC practice of "calling on the name of the Lord," was originally intended to be an 'active' form of prayer/worship. In other words, it wasn't supposed to just be something that everyone goes along with just because.

What happens in LC meetings is that someone will tell everyone to call on the Lord three times, or sometimes it just happens spontaneously. When the whole group is doing it, no one wants to be the odd one out, so simple group pressure ensures that 99.9% will follow suit. Unless an individual has made a conscious decision to pray/worship the Lord in that way, then it is the exact opposite of what was intended. It becomes passive and perhaps a form of taking the Lord's name in vain.

I do understand what the LC practice was intended to accomplish. I never saw it practiced in a meaningful way. It just became part of the LC formula, right down to the rhythmic phrasing of "Oh Lord Jesus."

[Ohio]

Years ago Ray Graver compiled an account of those who prayed the scriptures, calling Lord .. Thou said. The book was a spiritual account from many men of God. They practiced "Pray-Reading" the scriptures. The booklet was well written and well received.

Compare that to the LC practice of Pray-Reading, which is mere repetition of parts of verses, and PSRP what their robotic practice has morphed into. It is merely a mechanical exercise, and not at all spiritual. It could easily become part of a political campaign rally. "Now repeat after me ..."

The Bible says to "test all things, hold on to the good." We should always ask, is my heart engaged now? Or am I just going along with the crowd? Does this require an active exercise of faith? Or am I just doing a thing to please others? Am I worshiping God our Father in spirit? Or am I just honoring God with my lips?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The situation that I described highlights what I'm trying to get at here, and Ohio's post reflects the same. I would say that the LC practice of "calling on the name of the Lord," was originally intended to be an 'active' form of prayer/worship. In other words, it wasn't supposed to just be something that everyone goes along with just because.

From what yourself and Ohio are saying it seems you are doubting the sincerity of the practice rather than the practice itself.

But the same argument you described could be applied to anything Christians need to do but may not want to do - going to church, bible reading, singing hymns etc. This does not mean there is something wrong with the practice itself.

What you describe is the person's own fault (they are the hypocrite, not the person asking them to call on the Lord). Sometimes we need to do things we don't feel like doing and when we do them we are blessed. Prayer is one of those things. Sometimes encouragement from others is a good thing. Anyway, what is the difference between someone telling you to pray in a meeting, and the Bible telling you to pray?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

From what yourself and Ohio are saying it seems you are doubting the sincerity of the practice rather than the practice itself.

What Biblical support do you provide for pray-reading Lee's outlines and messages. Have they now become scripture for those in the LC's?

[least]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What Biblical support do you provide for pray-reading Lee's outlines and messages. Have they now become scripture for those in the LC's?

And singing training textbook outlines?
I wonder why Evangelical is so keen to put down reading the bible and singing hymns.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What Biblical support do you provide for pray-reading Lee's outlines and messages. Have they now become scripture for those in the LC's?

I will answer that if you can tell me what biblical support do you have that says we can study and pray Paul's epistles ? Where is your biblical support for the Canon of the New Testament?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I will answer that if you can tell me what biblical support do you have that says we can study and pray Paul's epistles ?

Where is your biblical support for the Canon of the New Testament?

For nearly two millennia, these 27 books, and no others, have been accepted by professing Christians and churches. The addition or subtraction of these books from the recognized canon is a hallmark of cults.

You obviously are not pleased with this answer, and might want to take it up on the Alt-Views sub-forum.

This LCD forum will not entertain discussions about reinventing the Christian wheel of the New Testament. That discussion is outside the prescribed boundaries of this forum.

The owner, moderator, and grateful servant here -- UntoHim -- has made this abundantly clear since the forum's inception.

[Evangelical]

To give an example, suppose someone knows the verse about nothing being impossible for God. They then pray the verse in the context of asking God for a million dollars for their own selfish pursuits. They are praying the Bible but they ask amiss according to God. According to you, since they pray the bible they are praying right.

Suppose someone pray reads a message from Lee about nothing being impossible for God in the context of God changing our sinful hearts. According to you, to pray such a prayer would be wrong, because it uses Lee's message. But according to God the prayer itself is right.

We are not discussing reinventing the wheel. I believe in the Canon. So did Witness Lee. My point is that we have received the (written) Word of God through men. Yet you seem to believe that we need an instruction from the Bible to do anything. We need an instruction from the Bible to pray-read messages. Yet you know as well as I that following instructions from the Bible is not how the Bible itself was constructed. If that were true, then the Old Testament should define the New Testament. But men had to figure it out, pray about it, put two and two together, and give us the New Testament Canon.

I believe that God still speaks today and did not stop speaking when the Bible was written. I believe there is no difference between pray-reading a (biblical) message from Lee, and you pray -reading a bible verse which has gone through umpteen different translations. I believe that prayer from our own misguided hearts can potentially be worse than pray-reading a message from Lee if that message is on target. I believe that pray-reading a bible verse that we may understand out of context to be no better than pray-reading a message of Lee that is "in context".

[Freedom]

I'm not talking about sincerity here. I'm talking about initiative. If the point of a practice is what you call an "invocation of His presence," then I don't think being nudged to do it counts. Singing, prayer and worship can all be done passively, and I'm not judging that. I know that I've done it myself. What I'm saying is that if "calling on the name of the Lord" refers to a direct interaction with God, then it can't be a passive practice done according to some formula.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm not talking about sincerity here. I'm talking about initiative. If the point of a practice is what you call an "invocation of His presence," then I don't think being nudged to do it counts. Singing, prayer and worship can all be done passively, and I'm not judging that. I know that I've done it myself. What I'm saying is that if "calling on the name of the Lord" refers to a direct interaction with God, then it can't be a passive practice done according to some formula.

What about all of those people calling on the name of the Lord in a genuine way? What do you say about those? How is this peculiar? How it is any more peculiar than praying in tongues?

I agree it can't be a passive practice done according to some formula, and I could say the same about any aspect of the Christian life. That does not mean the practice itself is wrong.

This seems to be your attempt to discredit the practice of calling on the name of the Lord by pointing to examples by which people may not initiate to call on the Lord. If that is to be the standard of how we determine something to be peculiar or not, then we better start discussing the fact that in practically every denominational church there is someone at the front initiating and telling everyone what to do, and they do it, even if they don't feel like it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What about all of those people calling on the name of the Lord in a genuine way? What do you say about those? How is this peculiar? How it is any more peculiar than praying in tongues?

Obviously any brain dead lurker here knows that we are not criticizing those who call on the Lord in a genuine way. I myself do this still, as do many others in and out of the LC's. Contrary to popular opinion, the LC's have never cornered the market on calling on God in prayer and worship. Whether they say "Oh Lord Jesus," or "Jesus. Jesus" or "My God, My God," our Heavenly Father knows all hearts, and knows vanity and vain babbling when He sees it.

Even in Paul's final days this item of worship had degraded into a showy formality, otherwise he would not have written favorably to Timothy about those who "call on the Lord out of a pure heart." (2 Tim 2.22) What I saw on that Whistler Kangaroo Quarantine Court for Titus Chu was not the genuine article. The instruction from the podium, "let's all rise and call on the Lord 5 times," should remind us all of the warning from Jesus Himself in Matthew 7.21.

Go watch that video again. You will become keenly aware of how exclusive and divisive LSM has become, and how degraded their practice is. The Lord seems to hate performances such as these. Why else would He expose those who make ostentatious spiritual performances. (See Matthew 7.5-8) When that happens, He advises us to go pray in closets, because there in the closet all alone we are not man-pleasing hypocrites, neither do we repeat empty words like the Gentiles.

[Evangelical]

The "calling on God in prayer and worship" you refer to is mostly to do with supplication. In the denominations they do not teach about or practice calling on the name of the Lord, (which is Jesus, many denominations do not even use the name of Jesus), for the purpose of invoking the Lord in the public assembly.

It is for this reason that the author of this article thinks it to be a "peculiar teaching" -

Some of the notes are good and helpful, but many promote some of the peculiar teachings of The Local Church. These include what seems to be a modalistic understanding of the Triune God, “calling on the name of the Lord”, the mingling of the divine with human in believers, and an eschatology which, while pre-millennial, includes several unusual particulars.

The author himself fails to admit that many practices and teachings in Christianity today would be peculiar to the early church - such as Christmas, Easter, mandatory tithing, ritualistic mass or communion services, clown shows, smoke machines etc because of their pagan or worldly origins.

The sincere calling on the name of the Lord and the teaching by Lee to do so is most definitely not peculiar but what Watchman Nee might call "normal".

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What about all of those people calling on the name of the Lord in a genuine way? What do you say about those? How is this peculiar? How it is any more peculiar than praying in tongues?
I agree it can't be a passive practice done according to some formula, and I could say the same about any aspect of the Christian life. That does not mean the practice itself is wrong.
This seems to be your attempt to discredit the practice of calling on the name of the Lord by pointing to examples by which people may not initiate to call on the Lord. If that is to be the standard of how we determine something to be peculiar or not, then we better start discussing the fact that in practically every denominational church there is someone at the front initiating and telling everyone what to do, and they do it, even if they don't feel like it.

Again, I think you're missing my point. I'm not attempting to gauge sincerity or suggest that a lack of genuineness can invalidate a practice. We have discussed the intended purpose of the LC practice of calling on the name of the Lord. Since this discussion started, I have been making the argument that the LC practice does not necessarily reflect the phrase "call on the name of the Lord" which is found in the Bible. You might not agree that I distinguish between the two, but unless you are able to come to terms with the possibility that the two aren't necessarily synonymous, then it will be hard to see the point that some of us are trying to make here.

Unless the LC practice consistently fulfills it's intended purpose, then a continued promotion is questionable. I don't doubt that the practice was originally intended to help everyone practice to invoke the Lord's name. However, given the tendency for it to be practiced formulaically, there is indication that something has gone awry. Indeed, there are even aberrant sects like The Shouters in China. Talk about extreme. That is what happens when something is taken to the extreme. Again, that doesn't automatically invalidate the practice, it just makes you wonder as to it's true benefit.

[Evangelical]

I take your point. You are saying it has become formulaic just like reciting the Lord's prayer has become formulaic in Christianity.

But if we consider the teaching of it, the various purposes of calling on the Lord can be found here:
http://www.callingonthelord.org/

That is the teaching of it.

I cannot think why a person would think teaching about calling on the Lord to be peculiar (not referring to you, but the author of the site that said it was a peculiar teaching), unless they had a love of religion but an aversion to the Lord's presence, like the Pharisees.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How many churches today worship God by calling His name? They sing songs, they don't call His name for the purpose of invocation of His presence.

Having been in denominational churches for 30 years I and my family can testify that the phrase is not mentioned at all and not focused on. WL could possibly be the only bible teacher to highlight this matter and elevate it to the importance that he has. In most churches the only time the Lord's name is used is during prayers of supplication, which is the majority of Christian prayer today.

You mean to elevate the recitation of words to invoke His presence?

There are so many forms by which people think that they invoke the presence, blessing, power, etc., of the Lord. Like an incantation.

That is the standard MO of the healthy, wealthy and wise gospel.

It is the claim of faith healers.

And while the benefit gained is not a narrowly defined, Lee would have us understand that chanting words is such an important thing to do.

In hindsight, it seems so detached from anything of any real prayer or even truly spiritual activity that is seems more like crank telephone calls. Dial the number, say the words, and hang up. Repeat ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, there are those who follow the way provided by Christ and pray:
— to the Father
— concerning his attributes
— concerning their needs
— repenting for their sins
— forgiving others
— recognizing the kingdom and whose it is

And then act according to the will of the one they have prayed to. They ask about those "low" things like which alternative (whatever) to choose. And so on. And then they step out and act according to what they sense as the leading.

They have spent time with God.

Your way is to say "Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!" And then when you realize you haven't said it in a while, you do it some more. Its seems like a kind of "Look at me God. I'm saying your name." But there is nothing to go with it. That is what small children do to get attention. But they don't really want to interact. They just want the attention.

Seems backwards.

[Evangelical]

We are not just saying anyone's name or saying empty words. We are saying the name of Jesus which if you recall has power in it.

It is also possible to pray the Lord's prayer, ask God for stuff and to do things, and then continue on with daily life, without much interaction. There is interaction resulting when we call on the Lord's name. We call on the Lord's name and pray the Lord's prayer in the way you described.

Many times when we call on the Lord's name, there is provision, problems are solved, just by invoking His presence.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We are not just saying anyone's name or saying empty words. We are saying the name of Jesus which if you recall has power in it.

Yes, the name of Jesus has power in it. But even the account (I believe in Acts) has an account of men trying to do miracles by invoking the name of Jesus.

Simply saying things like " the name of Jesus . . . has power in it" you come off as seeming to invoke the name simply as a source of power. Reminds me of that scene in The Mummy where Evelyn starts to read something out loud from the Book of the Dead and it is evident that something happens immediately.

I am fully aware that God can and does do things exactly like that. But mostly He does not. And he is not simply a power to be called into action through special words. The one famous reference to calling on the name of the Lord is not associated with general receiving of power, but with obtaining salvation.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is also possible to pray the Lord's prayer, ask God for stuff and to do things, and then continue on with daily life, without much interaction. There is interaction resulting when we call on the Lord's name. We call on the Lord's name and pray the Lord's prayer in the way you described.

Many times when we call on the Lord's name, there is provision, problems are solved, just by invoking His presence.

You are correct to say that there are many who do rote prayers who are not "getting through to God." But it is not because of how they do it (rote prayers v saying "Oh Lord Jesus") but that they are simply trying to use a "Christian" Talisman to force the God of power to come to their aid.

As for speaking about the provision, solving of problems, etc., by calling on His name or invoking his presence, is that really a true statement? Are problems as consistently solved as we like to say, or are we more often comforted in the midst of problems that continue? I think that we send the wrong message when we use the terminology of getting some kind of earthly benefit rather than simply recognize that the most important thing we get from God is not benefits to me other than the strength to live the life that we were created to live.

I honestly think that it is difficult to comment on "invoking His presence" in terms of solving problems because the number of such invocations relative to the number of problems solved is not necessarily different than the general resolution of such problems. I am one who will always give God the glory for what benefits come my way. But I do not presume that it is some kind of special provision that I get that is truly different from what others get just for being alive. The most important part of what I get from God is the opportunity to live my life as part of His kingdom — and more and more, day by day, living it in the way that he created us to live it.

What I don't see is any indication that "calling on the name of the Lord" is intended to simply be a kind of chant to feel better. And in the case of the usage by those in the so-called local churches, it has been used as a pick-me-up in the midst of very dark actions. The short break in the midst of the Whistler conference to roast Titus Chu for wanting clean sheets, teaching young ones to use Bible dictionaries and commentaries, and publishing his own materials is an excellent case in point. The end of this charade was the expulsion of Titus Chu. A gathering of leaders from North America plus a few from around the world excluded someone from fellowship for nothing that was worthy of such action from anything I can find in the Bible. Yet this is the action of those who are so proud of how the call on the name of the Lord.

It suggests that their practice really has no power in it at all. Not that God has no power, but that the mere invocation of His name is not the invocation of his power, or a rubber stamp on the actions of the one(s) doing the invoking.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

What I don't see is any indication that "calling on the name of the Lord" is intended to simply be a kind of chant to feel better. And in the case of the usage by those in the so-called local churches, it has been used as a pick-me-up in the midst of very dark actions. The short break in the midst of the Whistler conference to roast Titus Chu for wanting clean sheets, teaching young ones to use Bible dictionaries and commentaries, and publishing his own materials is an excellent case in point. The end of this charade was the expulsion of Titus Chu. A gathering of leaders from North America plus a few from around the world excluded someone from fellowship for nothing that was worthy of such action from anything I can find in the Bible. Yet this is the action of those who are so proud of how the call on the name of the Lord.

It suggests that their practice really has no power in it at all. Not that God has no power, but that the mere invocation of His name is not the invocation of his power, or a rubber stamp on the actions of the one(s) doing the invoking.

OBW, so well said! You have a way with words. Worthwhile for others to read them again.

You are so right. Their "calling" was like a magical chant, at best merely a pick-me-up in the midst of very dark actions. Like a 7th inning stretch at a boring baseball game.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, the name of Jesus has power in it. But even the account (I believe in Acts) has an account of men trying to do miracles by invoking the name of Jesus.

Simply saying things like " the name of Jesus . . . has power in it" you come off as seeming to invoke the name simply as a source of power. Reminds me of that scene in The Mummy where Evelyn starts to read something out loud from the Book of the Dead and it is evident that something happens immediately.

I am fully aware that God can and does do things exactly like that. But mostly He does not. And he is not simply a power to be called into action through special words. The one famous reference to calling on the name of the Lord is not associated with general receiving of power, but with obtaining salvation.

We understand that the name equals the person. So to use the name is to use the person. And the person has power, we cannot separate the power and the person.

Many Christians in the denominations say "in Jesus name" at the end of their prayers. Is this not their attempt to invoke a special power by special words?

Originally Posted by OBW

You are correct to say that there are many who do rote prayers who are not "getting through to God." But it is not because of how they do it (rote prayers v saying "Oh Lord Jesus") but that they are simply trying to use a "Christian" Talisman to force the God of power to come to their aid.

As for speaking about the provision, solving of problems, etc., by calling on His name or invoking his presence, is that really a true statement? Are problems as consistently solved as we like to say, or are we more often comforted in the midst of problems that continue? I think that we send the wrong message when we use the terminology of getting some kind of earthly benefit rather than simply recognize that the most important thing we get from God is not benefits to me other than the strength to live the life that we were created to live.

I honestly think that it is difficult to comment on "invoking His presence" in terms of solving problems because the number of such invocations relative to the number of problems solved is not necessarily different than the general resolution of such problems. I am one who will always give God the glory for what benefits come my way. But I do not presume that it is some kind of special provision that I get that is truly different from what others get just for being alive. The most important part of what I get from God is the opportunity to live my life as part of His kingdom — and more and more, day by day, living it in the way that he created us to live it.

What I don't see is any indication that "calling on the name of the Lord" is intended to simply be a kind of chant to feel better. And in the case of the usage by those in the so-called local churches, it has been used as a pick-me-up in the midst of very dark actions. The short break in the midst of the Whistler conference to roast Titus Chu for wanting clean sheets, teaching young ones to use Bible dictionaries and commentaries, and publishing his own materials is an excellent case in point. The end of this charade was the expulsion of Titus Chu. A gathering of leaders from North America plus a few from around the world excluded someone from fellowship for nothing that was worthy of such action from anything I can find in the Bible. Yet this is the action of those who are so proud of how the call on the name of the Lord.

It suggests that their practice really has no power in it at all. Not that God has no power, but that the mere invocation of His name is not the invocation of his power, or a rubber stamp on the actions of the one(s) doing the invoking.

There are many examples in the bible where people used the name of Jesus and things happened, they were rescued, they were saved, just by calling on the name. There are still many examples today in Christianity.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We understand that the name equals the person. So to use the name is to use the person. And the person has power, we cannot separate the power and the person.

The name does not equal the person. This has been said ad nauseum, especially by Lee, but with nothing to support it. That kind of thinking a making the name into a thing of its own that has power. But when you "call on the name of he Lord" the idea was to request the person who had the ability to act.

I know, it sounds like the same thing. But it is not. It is like a phone number. If you say that the phone number = the person who might answer the phone, you are wrong. But if you dial the number, you will get the person. The number is a means to get to the person. It is not the person.

Simply calling on the Lord over and over is like picking up your phone and dialing a number over and over but never letting it connect or talking to the person at the other end of the line.

To be honest with you, the whole idea of this kind of uber-religious mantra of calling on the name of the Lord reminds me of something like going to your father's house, studying the furniture in the various rooms, and occasionally knocking on the door to the room in which he resides, but never entering the room.

He knows you are out there. He knows that you speak his name over and over, and that you study about him. But you don't enter the room. Once inside the room, it is time for something besides the continuance of the mantra.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many Christians in the denominations say "in Jesus name" at the end of their prayers. Is this not their attempt to invoke a special power by special words?

You could be correct on this one. I have said the same thing going back to my days in the LRC (that would be 1973 - 87). But they have less intentional expectation that they get what they want just because of the ending.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are many examples in the bible where people used the name of Jesus and things happened, they were rescued, they were saved, just by calling on the name. There are still many examples today in Christianity.

Are you really sure about that? Are you stuck with the idea that the words "called on the Lord" simply means say the name? I'm pretty sure that in virtually every instance it is really an alternate term for praying. More than just the mantra. Real conversation. Real speaking about those low, personal needs that Lee was so loath to hear in any kind of LRC prayer meeting. Only high prayers allowed.

So, like aron notes elsewhere, badger skins are Christ, but calling on the name of the Lord is merely to say his name.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The name does not equal the person. This has been said ad nauseum, especially by Lee, but with nothing to support it. That kind of thinking a making the name into a thing of its own that has power. But when you "call on the name of he Lord" the idea was to request the person who had the ability to act.

I know, it sounds like the same thing. But it is not. It is like a phone number. If you say that the phone number = the person who might answer the phone, you are wrong. But if you dial the number, you will get the person. The number is a means to get to the person. It is not the person.

Simply calling on the Lord over and over is like picking up your phone and dialing a number over and over but never letting it connect or talking to the person at the other end of the line.

To be honest with you, the whole idea of this kind of uber-religious mantra of calling on the name of the Lord reminds me of something like going to your father's house, studying the furniture in the various rooms, and occasionally knocking on the door to the room in which he resides, but never entering the room.

He knows you are out there. He knows that you speak his name over and over, and that you study about him. But you don't enter the room. Once inside the room, it is time for something besides the continuance of the mantra.

Yes it is our understanding that when we call the name we get the person. The name itself has no magical power and in fact the English name Jesus is the wrong name anyway.

What are you saying only applies to unbelievers or non-genuine believers, like the sons of Sceva, where the name does not necessarily equal the person.

If we are believers then the "phone line" is already installed in us. So when we "dial the number" by calling the name, we get the Person, always, 100%, there is no dropouts and nothing further we must do to access the Person.
So to us the name equals the person.

Technically when we pray a "normal" prayer, we don't get the person either. He does not come down from Heaven to meet with us physically. He meets with us by His Spirit.

Originally Posted by OBW

Are you really sure about that? Are you stuck with the idea that the words "called on the Lord" simply means say the name? I'm pretty sure that in virtually every instance it is really an alternate term for praying. More than just the mantra. Real conversation. Real speaking about those low, personal needs that Lee was so loath to hear in any kind of LRC prayer meeting. Only high prayers allowed.

So, like aron notes elsewhere, badger skins are Christ, but calling on the name of the Lord is merely to say his name.

Actually, it is not just saying the name. We must use our spirit. This is emphasized very much in the Recovery.

Jesus Himself said our personal needs would be taken care of if we seek first His kingdom. That is something we don't have to pray so much about and not really something worth everyone's time. I'm sure that when Jesus sent the disciples out two by two, they were not begging and pleading with God to feed and clothe them on the way. God provided as they went.

When we come together for fellowship we don't want to hear prayers about someone's lost puppy dog and things like that. That is a waste of everyone's time and defeats the purpose of coming together.