[tasteslikegold]

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."

Setting aside for a moment the issue of James (And I don't entirely agree with Lee's assessment of James' epistle), religion, is, in its most essential factor initiated by man. I'm sure we could find a number of objective/subjective definitions of religion, as it's been defined and re-defined throughout the ages, but for the most part all definitions agree: It is essentially man's outward desire to please God as a response to faith. Now, the Roman Church typically has viewed religion as a positive thing, due to the fact that outward observances are emphasized for the sake of the laity. Theologians of the Roman era often used the term interchangeably with "faith." Therefore, "religion" was a the most pure exercise of one's faith. God was said to be pleased with the practices of the faithful Roman who carried out the exercise of their faith in the keeping of, and participation in, the Holy Church's sacraments (by definition, "a religious rite"). The same exists today, in fact, and millions of the Roman Catholic faithful are held in bondage to set of doctrines and religious rites which are far removed from anything resembling the exercise of pure and unadulterated faith in God. Sounds harsh, I know, but few Protestants would disagree with that.


On the other hand, in Protestantism, during the Reformation (and onward) those essential ideals were not lost. Yes, the Protestants were freed from the religious rituals which kept them afar from God and shadowed in ignorance, but they were replaced with another set of dogmas, rituals, etc. These were ever-changing throughout church history, by the increasing effort to avoid the chains of "religion." In fact, constant resurgences of the Reformation throughout the ages have sought to, on the one hand dispense with the dead religious practices of the former ages, and on the other hand to "revive" the church into a new age of genuine faith, and a genuine relationship with our true husband, Christ. Just examine, for example, the Pentecostal and charismatic movements in the United States in the past 300 years or so and you'll see that. Consistently, over and over in these movements, it is "religion" that is sought to be dispensed with , and "faith: that is sought to be emphasized (and, on the negative side it must be pointed out, re-defined).

So the Local Church is really no different than any other group or movement which has defined religion as something as only negative and to be avoided, and which has tried to bring a deeper understanding of "pure faith" into the mainstream of Christendom. This is a common thread in the writings of most of the reformers - even the modern era reformers. In fact, if you take the LC's view of history into consideration, it has always been a part of that minor aspect of Christendom which has attempted to challenge the popular religious dogmas of various eras in church history.

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.

I don't think so. You can't make an assumption concerning the general consensus of the average LC follower. That's a crucial error in judgment. The term "religious service" may mean one thing to a certain LC and then quite something different to another. It depends upon which aspect of Christendom (which denomination) the respective LC member has come out from. For example, if one happened to have come from a free group like Calvary Chapel or the Vineyard, the term 'religious service" would mean something very different than one who had come from a Methodist or Lutheran denomination. One might take the term more lightly than the other. So you can't generalize there.

More to follow. I've run out of time for today. Next response will be to the paragraph staring with "That is what I am talking about when I speak of terminology..."