[OBW]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

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?

This is a strawman argument. I never suggested that actually saying something wrong was OK under the guise of terminology being unimportant. You even quoted where I said "unless it is actually intended to say something that is incorrect" yet now want to throw in a theologically incorrect statement to say that terminology is important.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Incidentally, “Holy Spirit” is hardly an exclusive term by any means.

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.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

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?

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 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.

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.

But I still disagree with the notion that Paul's use of the trumpet metaphor in 1 Corinthians 14 cannot be about terminology. While it was obvious that having part of the speaking be in languages not understood by anyone present was a source of confusion, the point was that the content of the meeting should be accessible to all. If you need a lexicon to access the content of the meeting, it is irrelevant whether the need is due to a foreign language being in use or specialized jargon that is not commonly understood, or the use of terms in a manner that is not in sync with their common usage. And if pride is taken in that specialized jargon, then there really is an immaturity (as you previously suggested) that places the participant's level of spirituality quite much lower than what they think about themselves.