Teaching on Calling on the Name of the Lord

[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".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 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.

Please don't project these ridiculous ideas on me. I never wrote them.

To ask God for a million dollars is not to pray according to the Bible.

To ask God to win that lawsuit against Heritage House Publishers is to pray according to Lee, but it also is not to pray according to the Bible.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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".

I have read many messages from Lee that were not on target. You, however, are entitled to your own prayer life. My only suggestion is that which Jesus gave to His own disciples, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" at LSM.

[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.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

On two different sections of the site you linked, I came across the following statements:
Some Christians may consider calling on the Lord equivalent to the same as praying to Him. It is true that calling is a type of prayer, but calling is not merely praying. For example, Jeremiah 29:12 clearly differentiates the two: “Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you.”

When we call loudly with an open mouth we experience Psalm 81:7a, 10b. As we love the Lord with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), we call upon Him with all of our being. The use of the word “wide” in Psalm 81:10 implies a strenuous exercise. Opening our mouth this way leads us into a richer experience of Christ.

It is troubling that they would distinguish calling and prayer. The two can be the same thing. A prayer can be a cry out to God. It's these kind of statements that raise a bit of a question mark. They provide one example of a difference between calling and prayer and then they ready to make a claim about what other Christians fail to 'see' or practice.

The second sentence is even more troubling. It talks about audible calling. I don't necessarily have a problem with that by itself, but it also suggests it should be 'loud' and finally says that it should be a "strenuous exercise." When there start to be assertions about the intensity or volume at which it should be practiced, that's where things can get questionable and give people the ground to label it as a peculiar teaching.

A number of years ago, I attended a college conference where there was a message given on the subject of calling on the Lord. The brother who gave that message mentioned listening to some old tapes of WL speaking on the subject of calling on the Lord, and he was impressed by the way that WL had demonstrated "calling on the Lord." Apparently, the example WL gave was done at the top of his lungs with much more exuberance than it is normally practiced. So the brother was trying to make the point that there was supposedly a minimal level of intensity at which it should be practiced (I guess this might have been what WL taught at some point).

Later that day after getting back, we had a home meeting with a few who had been at the conference. One person in the meeting (who was at that conference) had a history of being a bit mentally unstable. During the meeting, we wanted to try to practice what the brother had talked about at the conference. As we were all shouting "Oh Lord Jesus" the unstable person started shouting louder and louder, and after a minute or so, this person had worked himself into a fit of rage and was yelling at all of us in the room. It took some effort to calm him down and the situation was a bit scary as it was completely unexpected.

Apparently, he had gotten angry that the rest of us weren't calling loud enough, based upon what he heard at the conference. Anyways, my point here is that the whole situation was instigated by a message claiming that the practice of calling on the Lord should have a certain level of 'intensity' to it. The person who was mentally ill took it to the extreme, but the rest of us didn't know any better either. We were just attempting to practice what we had been taught. This is where peculiarity comes into play. At least from what I've seen, what the LC teaches about calling on the Lord has the potential to be (and has been) taken to certain extremes.