[tasteslikegold]

Regarding Terminology:

You wrote:

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?

So essentially, “If it ain’t broke why fix it? Well, because changes in terminology affect changes in understanding and behavior. This has been widely known for centuries – ever since the beginnings of the Roman Church in fact (As far as Christianity is concerned anyway). The Roman Church is perhaps the most obvious example of terminology affecting understanding and behavior. This institution is rife with religious terminology, which from its inception has kept the clergy apart from the laity; at one time kept the educated apart from the uneducated, and the rich apart from the poor.

Also take as an example the “African-American” population in the U.S. At one time referring to a an African-American man or woman as “Negro” was perfectly acceptable. Then at some time it became associated with a term of derision, so it was changed to “black.” Then, at another point it was changed to “African-American” or “Afro-American.” Now, many don’t object to being called “black,” but some do. Yet the point is that the terminology evolved as a people desiring to change public perception evolved in our society. It is far more accurate to refer to one of African descent an “African-American.

There are changes like this going on all the time, in fact. In the scientific community changes to terminology is going on all the time. In our culture we are constantly changing the way we refer to things, to groups of people, in order to respect people, more accurately define conditions, objects, etc. and to change perception and behavior. So why should the church be any different?

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’.”

And why shouldn’t we take pride in a better terminology, especially if the employment of such terminology deepens our experiences of worship, and even Christ Himself? See, you believe that the employment of certain terminology is inherently divisive facilitates self-pride. But I would suggest that if such pride is taken it is only because of some individuals’ immaturity, not, as you suggest, that it is reinforced by the leadership. Never, not once, have I ever attended a training, spoken personally with any elder or co-worker, or even spoken to another member of the LC who said something to the effect of, “We are so much better than the rest of Christianity because we understand that Jesus is the “all-inclusive Christ. We have the all-inclusive Christ but poor Christianity just has Christ.” In fact, I have experienced quite the opposite. At some point in my early experiences with the LC I was rebuked for having said something about Christianity, and I have also seen others put in their place by LC leadership for criticizing other Christians in the manner I mentioned.

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.

I never wonder at blank stares. In fact I sometimes use the common terminology in conjunction with LC terminology, and most people tend to understand. If they don’t then I explain it and it’s rarely ever a problem.

Incidentally, “Holy Spirit” is hardly an exclusive term by any means. And as far as “turn to your spirit,” it is the same thing as setting the mind on the spirit, as “turning” requires the setting of the mind. This is usually explained when someone has a question about it. You seem to have the impression that the typical LC member uses unqualified terminology in the company of the “typical Christian” and then just walks off leaving them to wonder. If such a thing does happen it’s extremely rare.

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.

Actually I’ve read books in which Nee and Lee both use the term religion to simply describe other religions. Yet I do understand that “religion” in the sense of Christianity is used in a specific (although not uncommon or unusual) way to denote the negative aspects of ritual, the keeping of the law, good works, etc. But such a thought, such an employment of this terminology is hardly rare in the history of Christendom. You seem to only take umbrage at the fact that Lee (and actually Nee as well) uses it only in the negative sense. Yet this ignores somewhat the essential point of how the term is employed: To help believers dispose of the notion that they need anything other than a direct personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

We could probably argue endlessly about that last point. Perhaps it’s just best to leave it at the disagreement and move on. I personally do not, have not, ever believed that the facilities of “religion” help to foster a deep personal relationship with Christ. In fact I have only ever experienced in my life that religion became a barrier between myself and Christ. So when I read or hear a message in which religion is negative I tend to agree with it always.

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.

Not necessarily. Especially not when we have the heritage of Watchman Nee, who is respected largely by Christian teachers. Nevertheless, the point regarding “home meetings” was not to point out how some group(s) have picked up on our terminology, but to show that the use of specific terminology is not as confusing as you argue it is. When I say “home meeting” and someone else hears “Bible study” there’s no confusion there. Neither is there a need to say, “We’re having a home meeting. Well to YOU that would be ‘Bible study’ but you know ‘home meeting’ is better.” That doesn’t exist. Neither does the impression that “home meeting” is better than “Bible study” get left when the term is used in front of your average Christian.

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.

I disagree. Speaking an entirely unknown tongue is not nearly the same as using different terminology, and neither is it the same as “trumpeting.” Were that the case then we are all guilty of “trumpeting.” How much specialized jargon does the Roman Church employ that many Protestants don’t understand? What about southern Baptist or Pentecostal congregations? There’s specialized jargon all throughout Christendom, most of which is largely ignored. Yet for some reason you believe that only the LC is guilty?

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?

I think that God is concerned with the heart. I agree with you to a degree that terminology is unimportant. But if it is truly as unimportant as you make it seem, why do you take issue with any person or group’s desire to utilize terminology in a manner that is befitting their own overall belief (practice, culture, doctrine, etc. – all the things that help to drive changes in language and terminology)?

If I said to you that “participation in the sacraments makes me an authentic member of the universal church, the Body of Christ, and my salvation is dependent upon participation in the sacraments” do you get a sinking feeling? And yet you may understand that over-reliance upon a religious ritual, couched in religious terminology, can draw my heart away from a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ. Why would you not have the desire to point that out to me? Again, this gets into the whole ‘religion is only ever negative” argument. But at a certain point the two issues sort of merge. So while God may not be overly concerned with terminology I believe He is very much concerned with how terminology affects behavior and causes His people to be far removed from him.