Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
I think the issue here is "the practice in the LRC". I am not defending the practice in the LRC. What I have said consistently from my first post on this thread to this one is that "pray reading" as defined by RG's book is scriptural.
OBW has argued that this book was written to defend the practice of the LRC and that by using the term "pray reading" it is a form of equivocation. I feel that it is too strong to accuse RG of this without more evidence. However, I think applying his use of equivocation to this thread is very accurate. Everyone that disagrees with my posts has done so based on "the practice in the LRC" whereas no one has actually disagreed with what I have actually said, which is "pray reading as defined in RG's book is scriptural".
The second thing that I have argued is that there was not a uniform practice of pray reading. When I was in Houston it was clearly a practice that was being hyped and sold, but not necessarily embraced or employed. When I was in Irving working on the hall it was almost non existent. When I was in Odessa, I did not bring this practice, nor did GW (thankfully) so it was not an issue at all. When I was in the FTTT it was there and I ignored it. When I was in NY the practice in the meetings was quite different from the practice in Dunton house and it was a minor irritant (as a High School teacher I have a high tolerance for minor irritants).
The third thing I have argued is that with sin and the flesh we should be absolute and uncompromising. But since this was neither we should be general, strict on ourselves, general with others. I have stated that judging the way a man serves his Lord is to cross a line and you will regret that at the Lord's judgment seat. But having said that I have fulfilled my responsibility.
|
Actually, I started by trying to find out when the book was actually written and whether it was the one that described the very disjointed, deconstructive practice of pray reading. I believe that Igzy and/or someone else had suggested that
Lord Thou Saidst was written during the turmoil of the Nelson/Mindbenders lawsuits and would appear to be defending the LRC's pray reading.
I do not recall where I read it, but through some online resources, either in the LSM online books, or through another repackaged web site, I read several of the comments actually made by some of the people that were cited earlier. It has been a long time, so finding it again in the format that is drifting foggily through my brain could be difficult. But I recall that virtually none of them described anything like what I had ever seen as the practice of pray reading in the LRC. I admit that I only saw Dallas, Arlington, and Irving, plus whatever happened at conferences (mostly Dallas, Houston, Austin or Irving) and trainings (Anaheim or Irving).
Relative to my experience and observation, RG's book does not represent anything descriptive of the LRC practice of pray reading. So there is a disconnect from the very beginning outside of the use of the term "pray reading."
You need to forget this "judging a man's servant" malarkey. That is just a way to hide error. RG is the only one "judged" at any level and according to the rules of this forum, he is fair game. If you don't like it, argue why the judgment is incorrect. Just saying it should not happen is sooo like saying that we will be struck down for leaving the LRC. You sound quite foolish for it.
Besides, in the capacity as writer of the book we are discussing, whose servant is RG? If you argue that he is God's, then we might as well shut this forum down because we are all God's servants. And to take that position is to presume that he is actually doing what he did at the behest of his master. I don't think that God directed RG to write a book about a practice that the LRC did not employ so that through a common terminology it would be viewed as covering a practice that they did employ. That is deception. That is actually called equivocation. RG may have been blind enough to actually think that finding practices that mixed prayer with reading scripture was sufficient. But if he did, then he is not qualified to be writing such a book, or having anything to do with leading an organization of more than a handful of people.