This chapter is a call to action for Christian leaders to reintroduce the name of Yahweh back into the life of the church, drawing parallels to the biblical story of the Ark of the Covenant's return to Israel. LeCleir advocates for a coordinated effort involving the widespread adoption of Bible translations that include God's personal name, like the LSB, alongside organic grass-roots initiatives utilizing new media.

He outlines how this recovery should manifest across various aspects of church life, including publishing, music, and educational materials, ultimately emphasizing that local church adoption, led by pastors and elders, is crucial for the successful recovery of Yahweh's name for the spiritual flourishing of God's people.

In this chapter LeCleir discusses the purpose and intended impact of his work. He explains his decades of study into the name Yahweh and his motivation to compile this research into an organized format, primarily for his own understanding but also with the hope that it could potentially contribute to a recovery of the divine name in contemporary religious practice.

LeCleir draws a parallel between his own efforts and the biblical account of the Ark of the Covenant being returned, suggesting that just as ordinary individuals were used in that instance, he, as a "computer guy from Wisconsin," could possibly be used to bring the issue of Yahweh's name to the forefront for church leaders to reconsider.

Finally, LeCleir indicates that the concluding chapter of his work will address how church leaders can guide their congregations in adopting the use of this name.

In this chapter LeCleir explores the significance of knowing and using Yahweh's personal name within Christianity. He argues that while other ways of referring to God exist, using his specific name, Yahweh, is also crucial for a deep and intimate relationship with him.

LeCleir contends that excluding the name Yahweh from Bible translations and Christian practice is a detriment to spiritual understanding and goes against the principles of faithful translation and God's desire to be known as he truly is. Historical examples and theological reasoning are provided to support the idea that the recovery of Yahweh's name is vital for the church's flourishing.

In this chapter LeCleir argues for the importance of using God's personal name, Yahweh, as a vital element of Christian faith and practice. He contends that obeying God is a duty regardless of consequences, drawing on biblical examples of faithfulness in the face of danger.

Yet, while acknowledging that following God brings blessings, LeCleir explicitly warns against treating God's name or gifts as magical formulas for personal gain, illustrating this point with scriptural accounts of those who misused sacred things. Instead, he posits that knowing and using Yahweh's name is one of several essential spiritual gifts, like Scripture and prayer, that enable believers to experience the fullness of God's joy and live a more complete Christian life.

Ultimately, LeCleir asserts that neglecting this gift leads to an unnecessarily diminished experience of knowing God.

This chapter addresses more objections to the recovery of using the name "Yahweh" within the church. LeCleir counters the idea that this practice is cultish, arguing that while some groups misuse the name, the principle is valid and distinct from such movements. Another objection is that using "Yahweh" feels too Jewish and unfamiliar to Western Christians, to which LeCleir responds that discomfort with the historical and cultural reality of God's name shouldn't lead to discarding it.

He also acknowledges that switching from the familiar title "the Lord" to "Yahweh" will be unfamiliar and disruptive but asserts its importance, and refutes the claim that "the Lord" has become a functional name, as it remains a title. Finally, LeCleir considers the realism and practicality of such a widespread change, admitting it is unlikely to happen on a large scale, but maintains that if it is God's will, he can make it possible.

Sometimes...God does a thing.

In this chapter LeCleir addresses several common objections to the idea of rendering God's name as Yahweh instead of a title like "the LORD". The first argument he cites is that God's sovereignty means if the name's disuse was important, he would have already corrected it. Secondly he brings up the concern about human fallibility and questioning the wisdom of past figures who didn't emphasize the name. A further objection explored is the debate over the correct pronunciation of "YHWH", which the LeCleir argues should not prevent using the name. Throughout the discussion, the author frequently references C. S. Lewis's concept of "Chronological Snobbery" to challenge the assumption that modern perspectives are inherently superior to historical ones.

In this chapter LeCleir looks at the stated rationale for rendering YHWH as Yahweh instead of "the LORD" in two contrasting Bible versions. He highlights the historical struggle, particularly with the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, to include this name instead of the traditional substitute "Lord," citing a desire for greater accuracy and intimacy with God. While the ASV's attempt to reintroduce "Jehovah" was largely unsuccessful despite scholarly support, LeCleir presents the recent Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) as a contemporary effort to restore "Yahweh" to the text. He advocates for a broader adoption of God's personal name across various translations, emphasizing its importance for a deeper understanding and relationship with the divine.

In this chapter LeCleir shifts to examining the reasons why major English Bible translations, specifically the King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and English Standard Version (ESV), largely omit the personal name of God, Yahweh, replacing it with the title "Lord." He explores the historical roots of this practice, suggesting it stems from a tradition originating in ancient translations and Jewish custom, rather than a purposeful translation philosophy in early English versions like the KJV.

LeCleir also discusses the NIV's acknowledgement that marketability played a role in their decision and critiques the ESV's justification as being insufficient. Ultimately, the text argues that the common objections raised against restoring Yahweh's name in translations, such as uncertainty of pronunciation or the notion of Jewish reverence leading to disuse, are not strong arguments for its continued exclusion.