[OBW]

I began the section on terminology with the following:

You want to talk about terminology. Yes. That was a favorite of Lee's. Have higher terminology. Make sure that you don't say "go to church." Salt and pepper your religious talk with higher terminology. Make the terminology stand out.

To which you respond:

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Bull. If anything Lee pointed out the need to keep from being religious in our terminology. We don't "go to church" we are the church. We don't "attend service" we are in His service, etc. Nee pointed out the same things. And even throughout church history we find a constant churning of definitions and re-definitions as culture and various movements in church history affected the language. So I don't buy that Lee believed LC terminology to be any better in terms of what we use and what others use. Certainly he believed that the terminology was more accurate and less religious in its origins, but what exactly is wrong with that? If certain terminology is overly religious - or perceived to be such - or if certain terminology is not as accurate as it could be, why not strive to find something that works and is more accurate; even using language that, by its nature, stimulates deeper fellowship?

You seem to go back and forth about what is important or unimportant about terminology. It is clear from the beginning that using terminology that is “religious” or “overly religious” is a problem to you, Lee, and the LC in general. Yes, terminology may change as culture changes. But unless it is actually intended to say something that is incorrect, then what is the problem with any of it, from the oldest to the newest? Or from the most secular to the most religious?

It is true that people often think of “going to church.” It happens to all Christians, even those in the LC. But since you don’t use that term at all, you think that the thought inside is eliminated. But at the same time, people who are totally engaged in their worship and know that they are the church and that the meeting is just a meeting of the church still use the term. So what? Curse them? I am not saying that you are cursing them, but the LC takes pride in its better terminology. “We are the church. We don’t ‘go to church’.”

There is nothing wrong with being more accurate. But if there is a common term that is accepted by everyone in Christianity as saying “X” why create a different term for it and look down the nose at those who use the common term? You may not, but many do. And the way Lee and the primary coworkers spoke of these things enforced those notions. And your own words make it clear that you think the terminology is important.

Let’s look back at the statements that gave rise to my comments on terminology:

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Really? I think that you understand very well what "church life" means. It's simply a term which means "My life related to the church." Do you accept Christendom's terms like "church service" or "Sunday school"? You should know what these terms means pretty well without criticizing them, right? What about when someone talks about "my ministry" or when someone says "going to church." Do you criticize them by saying, "The Bible never uses the terms 'my ministry' and it never says 'going to church'"? Do you label these terms meaningless as well?

Here you equate the LC use of the term “church life” to the common use of the terms “my ministry” and “going to church.” But there is a big difference. For the LC, the “church life” is a core component of your spiritual existence. It is not well defined. But everything that is involved in the corporate aspects of the group is thrown in. It is not a “simply.” It is central.

And rewrite the “Doxology” so that you sing “Holy Spirit” rather than “Holy Ghost.” (You may not have experienced this, but it was a regular thing in the Dallas area.) Don’t pray to God in Heaven; pray to God in your spirit. Don’t set your mind on the Spirit; instead turn to your spirit.

If the reality of “turn to your spirit” was simply parallel with “set your mind on the spirit” that would be fine. But it would be better if when talking with the majority of Christians that you use the terminology they understand rather than using your own and wondering why they are giving you blank stares.

And “religion.” There is an altered term. No, Lee did not create an entirely new definition. Instead he took one definition of many and said that was the definition that applied in all cases. And so everything not LC became “religious” in a negative sense. And every time someone uses the term religion or religious in a positive way, it is taken as evidence of degradation because religion is only negative.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

As for "Lord's Table, Lord's Supper," etc. you know that we use "Lord's Table," and that the term has been around for hundreds of years. Read Chapter 9 of Frank and George Barana's "Pagan Christianity" with regard to the term "Lord's Supper."

Did I suggest a problem with the use of “Lord’s Table”? I surely did not suggest that it was original with the LC. I was suggesting that taking the position that one is superior to another or that the use of the inferior term indicates an inferior Christian is a problem. That the “Lord’s Table” is understood by most Christians, even if not the most commonly used term, makes this one less of an issue with regard to misunderstanding. It is only an issue if the fact of the different terminology creates a sense of superiority.

Yes, if the terminology works for you, that is fine. But when you run up against people who do not use the same terminology and you make no attempt to alter to more common terms, or deem them deficient because of that terminology that there is a problem. And that leads backwards (a little) to the point on the “trumpet.”

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Actually the "trumpet thing" was more about speaking different dialects absent interpretation. It wasn't about using the same language in different ways. If someone says "Bible study" and I understand it by my terminology to mean "home meeting," then what's it to anyone else? Or if I say "home meeting" and someone else understands it to mean, "Bible study" by their terminology where's the harm? In fact there is currently a growing movement within non-denominational congregations to have "home meetings." Hmmm....sounds a bit familiar to me.

I hope that by that last sentence you don’t think that it is the overflowing of LC ways into mainstream Christianity. Your group is too small and mostly unseen to be a source of such a significant thing. But I digress.

The “trumpet thing” was about confusion and the inability of people to follow and understand what was being said and/or happening. Whether it is about entirely different languages or merely specialized jargon that is not understood by the populace, the effect is the same. So in a modern context, you cannot remove the “unclear sounding of the trumpet” from the effects of specialized terminology that is not commonly understood. While it might be arguably OK to stick to you terminology while within a strictly LC context, once you move into conversation in the larger Christian context, to insist on using your terminology is to sound an uncertain trumpet. Those blank stares should tell you that you have not said to your “audience” what you thought you did.

Right now, I could dazzle you with a bunch of international tax terminology that even newer practitioners in the field do not completely understand. If there were some who dealt in State taxes, they might even think they understand the lingo because there are some common terms. But many of them have different meanings for two areas presumed to be within the same context. But if I were to use my tax jargon and when your eyes glaze over, or you start talking back to me in a manner that makes it clear that you did not understand me, I start mocking you for your lack of understanding, then there is a problem. And it is not with you. It would be with me for presuming that just because I know this term in a particular way that everyone else should also.

So if I say “Holy Communion” does something inside you say “religious”? Even if you mentally assent to the notion that there is nothing wrong with the term, is there still something deeper — some kind of sense that you can’t quite put into words — that sinks? And you (well maybe not you personally) consider that sinking feeling to be a sense in your spirit? Do you really think that God is that concerned about the terminology? Isn’t that a little like washing the outside of the cup?