I may come back to respond to more on this post, but the following will suffice for now. And, like you, I have not been involved here as much recently. I think I need to go look back at the older posts some more to get my bearings and context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tasteslikegold
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?
|
Actually, that
is what I believe is happening in at least some of the cases. Let's take an example.
The word "religion" and it various forms have a basic meaning. "The service and worship of God" or "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance." While there is plenty that can go wrong in that, "religion" is not, by definition, a negative thing. Yet that is how Lee and the LC treat it. For them, religion is simply man's attempt to please or reach God or something like that. And since it is "man's attempt" it is summarily dismissed as a definitional failure at its purpose because there is nothing that man can do in himself to please or reach God. So any reference to the word is taken as evidence of man's attempts and nothing of God. The word is entirely considered negative. It was one of the reasons that Lee thought so little of James — because he thought there was such a thing as "true religion."
But this is a redefinition of the word. When anyone outside of the LC says "religion," they are not automatically simply talking about man's unaided attempts to reach or serve God, but that is what is presumed to be happening. If I make a reference to a "religious service" what is your automatic thought about it? But it could be a reference to a meeting of dedicated, active, growing Christians that rivals the best that you ever think is going on in a LC meeting. But it is dismissed as negatively "religious" without a further thought.
That is what I am talking about when I speak of terminology. This kind of redefinition does nothing positive for you or anyone else. It only places a wedge between your group and everyone else. It's sort of like a bunch of kids who have learned that "blow" is sometimes used for something vulgar, then giggle every time the weatherman makes reference to how hard the wind is blowing. It is juvenile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tasteslikegold
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?
|
The problem with what you have said here is that you have ignored what I was actually talking about and created a different issue. I am starting with the presumption that we are talking about the actions of true Christians and not unbelievers who happen to show up and partake of "communion" anyway. I am noting that Christians are coming together in whatever way they do to partake of the remembrance that Jesus commanded. I am presuming that they understand the significance of the broken body and spilt blood symbolized by the "elements." But some have added "traditions" or even beliefs concerning the practice. I asked whether a mistaken "add-on" denies them the standing before God to partake of communion/the table. But you come back with "absent a true understanding." Does that mean you presume that the erroneous "add-on" (in your opinion, as well as mine) causes them to not understand and therefore not be truly partaking of communion?
What if the add-on is that the bread must start with a single piece of unleavened bread made with enriched white flour, and that it must be broken by two or more brothers (never sisters, unless that is all that are present, and then there is a question whether they should be holding the Lord's table), and then passed, person-to-person through the whole congregation. And it must occur during a meeting in which there are songs sung only a capella and according to a specified order of topics, beginning with worship of the Father.
What if someone does not do this? What if they decide to sing about the resurrection before the bread is even broken? What if they have a piano playing? What if they use little individual plastic cups for the wine or juice? Or have a bowl of juice in which the piece of bread you get is dipped?
Are any of these important to the actual remembrance of the work of Christ? Or is it that you partake of the break and wine/juice as you remember Christ and show, symbolically, his death.