[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by OBW

So is it "why shouldn't we take pride in a better terminology" or " only because of some individuals’ immaturity"? Pick a side. If you think you can straddle on this one, I don't see it.

There's the obvious difference between having pride in something, in a way of doing something, and using that pride as a means of "lording it over" others. There is nothing at all wrong with taking pride in a method of using accurate terminology. Where the problem comes in, usually due to immaturity, is when someone uses the terminology to prop up their own ego or to belittle others.

And in all you said in this context, it is clear that you missed the point. It was that getting the terminology right is so important that altering many of the words of a song so that "Spirit" can be inserted in the place of "Ghost." It made the singing too distracting and almost humorous to be of any value in worship. No. the LC does not "own" the term "Holy Spirit." I did not in any way suggest that it did.

Okay. so then, so what? If you found it humorous or distracting that's really a "you issue." I just don't see the point of it being inherently harmful or divisive. Was it inherently harmful or divisive when the various groups started using modern language in Bible translation rather than King James?

To the extent that any group uses its terminology as a basis of pride, I agree that it is not a uniquely LC issue. But to the extent that they use the terminology to describe what they believe and simply feel that it does it well and yet have no intent of gloating over their position or terminology, then it is not what I was talking about.

I'm not following you now. Are you arguing that it's the intent of the LC leadership to create differing terminology with the goal of being apart from and taking a position of superiority to the rest of Christendom?

I used this analogy in a different context. This goes beyond terminology to the core of the belief that is behind it, yet can be viewed as somewhat benign. Some believe that bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Others believe that Christ is "beneath" the elements. These two have differing terms for their belief. While there is a "take" on the Lord's table that I cannot recall, the fourth is that it is a sacrament ordained by Christ as a remembrance of His death. But no matter which of these you follow, if you ultimately remember, then what is the problem with the add-on beliefs (even if ultimately incorrect)? And what is the importance of the terminology? To stand and beat your chest and claim the most theologically correct position and terminology is to act as the Pharisee as he gloated that he was not like the publican.

Again I'm not following you. Maybe it's the fact that I've not interacted with this conversation for some time. The terminology is sometimes benign. I'm not saying that all the terminology the LC uses has some deeper meaning or points to a deeper truth. Sometimes it's simply a matter of choice by preference or it's tradition. The term "Lord's Table" was used by the Brethren denom. Perhaps our use of the term is derived from there by simple convenience, or perhaps Nee or Lee purposefully chose the term because they felt is was more pleasant. The word "Eucharist" means "thankful or grateful." The word "Communion" means "to share or participate mutually." To me the idea of partaking of the "Lord's Table" implies coming to enjoy a meal with the Lord. With this comes the ideas of sharing, of thankfulness, of mutual enjoyment, or appreciation of the Lord's grace and mercy in His death, in the celebration of his resurrection, of feasting upon Him as my source of life, etc.

What's the problem with the "add-on" beliefs? Are you saying that whether some believe that the bread and the wine are the actual blood and body of Christ and others believe that they are merely symbolic representations to be partaken only on certain occasions, it's inconsequential to the act? Is the act in and of itself, absent a true understanding, all that pleases God?

I would agree that trying to direct people to correct belief is important. But terminology is not belief. It could color belief, or could mask true belief. But it does not do so because it is not the preferred terminology, but because the actual belief is incorrect.

Beliefs direct terminology, yes. But on the other hand terminology is integral to belief. The RCC (I hate to keep using them as my "whipping boy" but they have centuries of tradition and religious terminology, so they're the best example) uses the term "Sacraments" to describe a serious of rituals of which the faithful Catholic layperson must participate in order to attain eternal salvation. I would argue that the term is integral to both the belief and even the RC theology. Remove the term and the idea just could be that the sacraments are no longer important for salvation to the typical Catholic.