I know that I picked on this particular statement once before. But there is something else here worth discussing.
Quote:
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.
|
The problem I see is in the first sentence. And I will begin with the question that really needs to be answered.
How does terminology deepen the experience of worship or of Christ?
If you say it is because in coming up with the terminology you come to realize something true about Christ, about worship, about the Christian life, etc., that you did not previously understand as true, then there is some argument for the terminology. But even in that case, it is not the terminology that is important, but the truth that you came to see.
And if the whole of the community of Christ followers would benefit from such a “truth,” then being descriptive and thorough in showing how it is scripturally true is much more important than simply providing terminology that has conflicting meanings. Oddly, this is often how the altered use of terminology has come to be in the LC. For example, when Lee brought us to use “religion” as a completely negative thing, he started by providing a definition that goes something like “man’s organized way to understand and follow God.” No other aspects of the word is accepted even though it has other meanings according to the dictionary. And since it is “man’s organized way” then it is further defined as being something that man is doing by his own effort and not that of Christ. That makes it a “works-based” thing and therefore completely to be dismissed by any “true Christian.”
It would seem that this is one of the things that is despised about the book of James. Since James made a reference to “true religion,” then within Lee’s theology, at least that portion of the letter was to be ignored as just about man’s works done in an attempt to please God.
[Before I move on to more general discussion of terminology, I should note that one of Lee’s core teachings is based on this very kind of over-focused use of a single definition for a word. That word is “economy” which has a rich meaning (and I am talking about the Greek word, not the English). But Lee dismissed most of the definitions, then took one aspect of one definition and said that was all it was about. Dispensing. Nowhere does scripture even imply such a simplistic definition. And using 1 Timothy 1 to arrive at the definition is over-the-top since besides being mentioned as the result of proper teachings, it is not defined. And the implication is that it is a broad term encompassing the whole of the Christian life both individually and in community.]
Now to the extent that there is an issue of man doing his own thing to try to please God, that is worthy of discussion. But when it is encapsulated in a single word that means much more than that one theological error, then to intentionally use that word exclusively in that one way is to introduce confusion into the discussion. So the public use of “new” terminology through the effective re-definition of an old word is of no value in any supposed discussion designed to persuade. It is, in effect, a logical error because the fullness of the word is effectively swept into the single definition that you would push.
And in terms of the deepening of the experience of worship and of Christ, I even doubt that is an important factor for the use of specialized terminology, especially revised meanings for existing words with alternate meanings. Why? Because it is not the terminology that enhances the worship. It is the truth/fact/reality (however you want to say it). So there is something a little disingenuous to encouraging the over-focused use of a word or phrase as a stand-in for what you think is an important point when it also reinforces that same focused meaning in all other uses of that word, including in the process of discussions with Christians that are not part of the LC.
Now I am not saying that you are intentionally trying to be obtuse when you use LC terminology with others. And I am not sure whether it was even intentional with Lee or with any of his “Blended” followers/replacements. But there is something missing when the terminology is provided and not the meaning behind the terminology. (I admit that I have the same problem when anybody throws out terms, acronyms, etc., that are not defined. It happens all around. Even in business.)
And it is the meaning that might enhance worship or the experience of Christ. It is not the terminology. So pride in terminology would seem to be seriously misplaced.
And if another goal is to eventually enhance the experience of all Christians, will it be through arguing terminology, or through showing truth? Terminology is not truth. If there is something of substance buried in the terminology, then that is what must be conveyed.