[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

the problem is not that there is no such thing through history as what might be called "pray reading," but that there is no record of the kind of thing that the LRC pushed as "pray reading."

I remember Mr. Lee saying that it was like cutting up a steak. Cut it up into tiny peices and chew on it. Nice analogy; but where is the basis of this, beyond Mr. Lee's inspiration? Suddenly the "historical basis" evaporates.

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

Right. Cite others where it is convenient; ignore details which are not convenient. I think this is a trend which goes beyond the subject of pray-reading. You know, make a big deal about being rooted in the history of the christian faith, then when you want to deviate from that history, tell people how God wants a "new move". Then you can have it both ways.

That was easy, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by OBW

finding places where scripture contains the recording of a prayer that we can also pray does not support the general statement that scripture in general "was designed to be prayed." A prayer was designed to be prayed. That is not a general statement about the rest of scripture.

I remember being told (I don't doubt it goes back to Mr. Lee) that Paul told us "Unceasingly pray", therefore we were supposed to pray-read ALL the Bible, not just read it.

And when you got to the nasty parts, like Job's wife telling him to curse God and die, or Peter denying the Lord Jesus, you couldn't say "Amen" or "Hallelujah"... your repertoire of "prayers" shrank to "Oh Lord" and "Lord Jesus".

Reminds me of Lee's famous line that "Christianity (i.e. the clergy-laity system) has nullified the function of the members of the body." My prayers got shrunk to only 3 words!!