This is only a partial answer, but hopefully it provides additional references.
There was a similar project to remove disagreements "on the reference terminology", however, only among scientists, that A. J. Ayer credits with Otto Neurath: (page 82)
It was his acceptance of this doctrine of physicalism that let Neurath to insist so much upon the unity of science. It was not only that he wished scientists of different branches to work together more than they do. He believed that, in spite of the differences in the professional vocabularies they were all fundamentally speaking the same language: they were all investigating the same physical world.
Otto Neurath may be a place to look for more information. Ayer provides a survey of the Vienna School in his article and additional sources might appear there.
If one considers that anyone, any sort of believer or non-believer, can practice science since science is objective, what believers would bring to science is additional semantic content. For example, Alvin Plantinga claims that the difference between a theistic approach and an atheistic approach to evolution is that the theist believes that evolution was "guided" and the atheist does not. In particular he writes this: (page 308)
The scientific theory of evolution just as such is entirely compatible with the thought that God has guided and orchestrated the course of evolution, planned and directed it, in such a way as to achieve the ends he intends.
What this means is that from a semantic perspective, theism is likely able to engulf all scientific statements about "phenomena" adding to them divine guidance.
Ayer, A. J., Kneale, W. C., Paul, G. A., Pears, D. F., Strawson, P. F., & Warnock, G. J. (1957). The revolution in philosophy.
Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. OUP USA.