Ambiguity, Misnomers & Misrepresentations
Quite frequently religious differences involve and often center around an improper selection of terms and an erroneous definition of words. For that reason men of polemic skill begin their discussions with a definition of terms, knowing that little can be done to resolve their differences until a common ground of agreement can be reached as to what the controversy really involves. This is apparent, not only in the many differences Christians have had with aliens, but in differences between brethren. I believe this matter can be considered under three headings.
Ambiguity
The English language is a difficult language, being composed of many irregular forms. Many words which sound alike are altogether different in meaning and many words have double, triple, or even more meanings.
In discussing the purpose of baptism in Acts 2:38, it must be determined whether the English word 'for' means 'because of or 'in order to obtain'. The etymology of the word, the context, parallel passages, or some such device must be used to determine the meaning in the particular case, since in common usage the word 'for' is ambiguous and may have any one of several meanings.
In discussing the marriage question, Rom. 8:7 is introduced by some in a futile effort to prove that the alien sinner is not 'amenable' to God, when the text says, 'it (the carnal mind) is not SUBJECT to the law of God. . Here again is the necessity for determining which meaning of the word 'subject' is considered in the passage. The word 'subject' may mean either 'accountable, amenable' or 'submissive, obedient'. Rom. 8:7 teaches that the carnal mind is not 'obedient' to the law of God, but it does not even intimate that carnal mind is not 'accountable' to God.
Currently brethren are charged with being `anti-cooperation' when they oppose joint action of churches. It is possible that those making the charge are unaware of the ambiguity of the word 'cooperation', else their name-calling can be but prejudicial misrepresentation. The word 'cooperation' may involve 'joint action' or it may involve 'concurrent action', both of which are 'cooperation, one of which is scriptural and one of which is unscriptural.
The word 'organization' has entered into the controversy that plagues brethren today, and yet many have not considered the ambiguity of the word. The word may mean either 'process, systematic effort' or 'body'. Faithful brethren have opposed any organizational adjunct (separate body) to the church and at the same time they have defended organization (systematic effort) in the work and worship of the church. Then critics say, "Look, the antis oppose organization one minute and then defend it the next!". When brethren have discussed the 'Bible Class' situation, they have had to meet the argument that charges 'You brethren are putting an ORGANIZATION in the church!' Certainly, there was 'organization' in the sense of a 'systematic effort,' but no 'organization' (body) at all other than the church. Conversely, brethren already have the 'organization' (body) the church, but many go about their work with no 'organization' (systematic effort). Their defense of the 'organization' (the body) does not justify their negligence in 'organization' (systematic effort).
Misnomers
There are times when a word does not accurately describe, but rather mis-names. For example, the word 'baptize' means to 'immerse'. The etymology of the word indicates that it never meant anything other than immersion. Actually, it was not translated, but transliterated, for had it been translated it would have been rendered 'immerse'. The word 'baptize' is but an Anglicized transliteration of the Greek source. Therefore to use the word 'baptize' to describe the act of sprinkling or pouring is to mis-name the act. 'Baptism' is a misnomer when used to designate any thing other than immersion. It is true that some (especially the smaller) dictionaries define 'baptism' as 'sprinkling, pouring or immersion', but keep in mind that such definitions are in view of 'common usage' and not always the etymology of the word. Better dictionaries and reference works, which depend upon etymology rather than common current usage, indicate that 'baptism' is immersion and is a misnomer when applied to sprinkling or pouring.
'Home' is a word that has very boldly been used to misname. Quite frequently whole discussions center around the word 'home', with the word meaning 'place of abode' one time, 'family or household' another time, and subsequently a confusing switch from one definition to another. The word becomes a misnomer when it is used to designate the business establishment that provides a 'home' (place of abode? family? household?) for 'homeless' children!
Misrepresentations
In view of the above, to ignore the multiple meanings of such words as 'cooperation', 'organization', etc. may lead one to misrepresentation. To brand a brother as 'anti-cooperation' because he opposes 'joint-action-cooperation', but at the same time he defends 'concurrent-action-cooperation', is to misrepresent the brother. To charge that a brother is opposed to 'organization' in church work, knowing that his objection is only to organizational bodies, is to misrepresent.
Brethren have come to think of the word 'ANTI-' as a dignified 'cuss-word' to use on brethren who differ with them. If a brother is 'anti', he is 'opposed to' something. But opposed to what? Will brethren fairly represent one another and tell exactly what it is that the other is opposed to? To say 'anti-cooperation' is inaccurate; `anti-organization' is inadequate; 'anti-institutional' is a misrepresentation; 'anti-orphan' is a lie! Yet rather than adequately and fairly describe a brother's objections, it is much easier to say. `He's an anti-'. Such smacks of misrepresentation and would imply that the brother doing the name-calling is not an anti-; that is, not opposed to anything! Are brethren ready to accept that conclusion?
Misrepresentation has long been one of 'Satan's devices'. I recently listened to a brother who insisted that when the missionary society had done its work in evangelism, there was nothing else for the church to do. Brethren, with the faults the missionary society has, we do not have to resort to misrepresentation to expose it, nor any other of the exponents of error.
We do well to heed the exhortations of both Peter and Paul: 'If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God' Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you.'