Teaching on Calling on the Name of the Lord

[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.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

I think you are reading too much into what they are saying. I think they are saying it's a type of prayer because it is about contacting the Lord. On the other hand it's not "just prayer", because we cannot do so well just by calling. If we just called on the Lord and did not ask God for anything we would not receive anything.

I think anything in Christianity can be taken to the extreme. I have also observed the extreme angry behavior in churches before but it was to do with the doctrine.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think you are reading too much into what they are saying. I think they are saying it's a type of prayer because it is about contacting the Lord. On the other hand it's not "just prayer", because we cannot do so well just by calling. If we just called on the Lord and did not ask God for anything we would not receive anything.

I think anything in Christianity can be taken to the extreme. I have also observed the extreme angry behavior in churches before but it was to do with the doctrine.

It has been my observation and that of many others that the LC has a pattern of taking things to the extreme. Of course, anyone can take something to the extreme if they want to, but when a pattern exists, that's when it raises more difficult questions. At a very general level, the LC practice of calling on the name of the Lord is a 'shock' to newcomers and something that they generally have to acclimate themselves to. My question for you is whether or not this 'hurdle' to newcomers is necessary or not. Unless you can make the compelling argument that it is, then it is an 'extreme' that people must embrace in order to exist in the LC.

Time and time again, I saw people get scared off by practices like calling on the Lord. When people who have a genuine heart to follow the Lord are driven away by practices that they don't feel comfortable with, it raises difficult questions. I'm not talking about people just not liking the environment of a particular church or particular practices. I'm talking about practices that raise genuine and valid questions time and time again. If a Christian group is put in the position of having to constantly defend what they do, then maybe it's time to stop blaming the concerned individuals and instead start putting practices under the microscope.

So it is on this basis that I read things like that site you linked with a grain of salt. When I read that calling must happen 'loudly' or that it must be an "strenuous exercise", that raises a red flag. I've seen firsthand such things taken to an extreme in this way. And this is what is being taught in the LC. There is no way to question it in that environment or to put safety measures in place so that it doesn't get taken the wrong way. They just teach something and let people run with it. If it gets taken too far, they just point fingers.